Ramshutu

I’m not suggesting RM is penalized for accepting the debates in this scrnsrio- just not rewarded: there is a big difference.

The ELO system works for Type1 - who is low enough Rm would only earn a handful of points from. Type1 created 2 accounts meaning that RM gets substantially more points: probably getting to the 90 points mark. So the logic there doesn’t quite apply.

The specific issue here is not like this was a single debate, of multiple that were sitting around for a while. This was a substantial number of debates that were snapped up immediately solely for the purposes of earning substantial amounts of free points for 0 effort.

Again - one or two - I’d have no issue with - but 9 is a clear abuse of lax moderation with the intent to exploit the lack of moderation to jump the leaderboard.

Could anyone have accepted them? Maybe, I think many would have, and the fact that they didn’t implies some sort of either some insider information (RM knew something others didn’t - IE he knew it was Type1) or outright collusion.

Saying that, I think everyone would prefer a leaderboard that is reflective of debates won - rather than who is better at being online and accepting Type1 debates.

RM would agree with me too, if Type1 started challenging people who were not RM to substantial numbers of debates.

@Rm

Firstly; there are characters in Shakespearean tragedy that act less obsessed than you do i the average debate comment. A good way to sound convincing is to not act like your phone has been modified to autocorrect “,” to “Ramshutu”.

Secondly, don’t confuse the occasional witty comment and avatar change with sadism. You seem to have two emotional states: calm and wee-chair-smash-pant-soiling-sphincter-implosion; and my comments are more addressed at pointing out the ludicrousness of your outrage and obsession, rather than for the purposes of harm.

Quite frankly at this point, the only way you’d cause any sort of minute detriment to my enjoyment of this site is if you got yourself banned. Or started acting normally.

The issue with this type of site, and sites in general - is that crafting rules for specific behaviours you don’t like end up meaning you have lots of different rules, and end up having to let slide bad behaviour at times because you don’t yet have a rule.

If Bsh is going to be Mod Hitler - he’s going to be that whether or not the CoC allows for it; and in general I think you need to treat the CoV as a broad palette of prohibited behaviours that make it clear what the generally accepted behaviour is and is not, and then moderation takes action based upon that in order to maintain the general integrity of the site.

In this case, this applies to Type1 - not because he’s being singled out, as much as he is the first user to which has actively spammed. It also applies to Rm, not because he’s being unfairly singled out, but again because he’s the first.

The power is there in the CoC to remove debates; and multiple debates have been removed in the past on CoC grounds. If debates are deleted because they violate then CoC as personal attacks, or spam: then they should both be removable based on their potential impact which in this case is substantial.

I’m not going to begrudge your handful of Type1 Forfeit debates, or RMs previous 50ish examples, or all both of mine. But when you set up a system where you allow a single individual to pick up several months worth of points - it’s inherently detrimental.

Given that only one “user” is currently doing the spamming; and one user is overtly exploiting it at the moment - that kinda stands to reason right now. If one user goes over the top on exploiting something to the point it’s unfair to everyone else - then it’s reasonable to take action; that user effectively spoils it for the rest of us by drastically over doing it. Normally this should be self policing - but I would expect you and RM to be pissed if I took 9 of these debates, and I would expect RM and I to be annoyed if you took 9 of these debates. (That’s why in the previous Type1 spamfests, I only took a couple instead of all of them). 

What is much more concerning to me, is tha in this case  you and Type1 and me and Type1 have no history of note other than from this site. He and RM does - they communicate off site: and while it’s probable that Type1 is just a nut bag: it gives the appearance of shadiness with RM just so happening to catch all 9 debates in a row.

If advertising, and spam debates from Type1 (and any subsequent banned user) end up having to be deleted in the future - then cool. If people aren’t able to exercise a reasonable level of discretion, then that’s where you have to go.

Mathematics is an abstract concept.

but no matter how you feel about it, or how you feel at a time, you can’t make 1+1=2 just because you feel like it.

Oh I remember one that I forgot:

a) [if technically feasible] The block feature should be bidirectional. If an individual blocks another; the blocking user will also be prevented from instigating debates, messaging and tagging the blocked user.

Debates that violate CoC already get removed. Retroactive application only apppies to rule changes. I’m just specifying that the rules should be enforced consistently.

Maths isn’t based on feelings...

There are enough noobs for us all to snipe! Noobs for everyone!

Ever rolled your eyes so hard you saw your own brain?

Am I reading an RM post, or am I doing my best Impression of Bran Stark warging?

I think the issue speaks for itself: noob sniping is fine, banned users losing debates is fine: a banned user, who has consistently attempted to disrupt the site through spam debates should have those debates deleted - as it would if it were ANY other violations of the CoC.

I don’t think Type1 should be influencing the leaderboards by letting the debates stay up: and thus far, the notable and transparent absence of ANY coherent justification from RM, is basically confirming that he’s exploiting the system, and wants to keep the benefit.

90 points shouldn’t be awarded solely on the basis of being in the right place and time. If you want to keep the debates up - that’s fine: but at least make them unrated.

We’re not talking about one or two debates against a user with 1200 points, noob sniping: but 9 debates from a perma banned spammer. It makes the ranking more about who is online most and clicks accept rather than who is engaging in good faith debate.

That being said - we can probably just ask Type1 to spam you and I with debate challenges. 

As I said; Type1 spam debates are spam by a banned user. They are a violation of the CoC: and should be treated the same way as adult content or personal attack debates would be: they should be deleted.

Without this, you have a permabanned user, attempting to disrupt the site, and doing so by letting a single user accept 90+ points worth of debates. 

This site is a debating site, and as far as is possible the points should be reflective of who that. Purposefully exploiting gaps in the CoC to artificially inflated your points is antithetical to that, I understand that you’re using it as a tactic to win; and you’re objecting to it being taken away, because you don’t want to go to the effort to win them fairly: but this does not make it any more reasonable or fair.

You don’t seem to have an objection; simply resorting to angry factless accusations - in lieu of an actual reasoned argument. Which, ironically, is in no small part the reason you lose many of your actual debates.

@RM

Yeah... normally when you call someone a liar, it should be in circumstances and situations in which you can creatively claim you know the facts: and given that you have literally no meaningful way of knowing that I didn’t report particular debates (I did) - this accusation is just another meaningless, fabricated accusation.

Don’t you mean leet yeet meep creep.

I am completely unsurprised that you are attempting to defend your ability to gain 90 points with zero risk and effort - rather than actually earning t by rigorous and good faith; your objection is not because it is fair or reasonable for you to get those wins; but because you want the wins.

That is inherently the problem: no one on this site should be able to earn 90 points with no skill, no ability and simply being in the right place at the right time to click accept on debates they know will win due to the instigator being banned.

I would happily have all spam debates deleted - I’ve reported them all in the past, and had them deleted - my only reason for accepting them in the first place, is so that I wouldn’t be personally inconvenienced by one lone person accepting them all and ending up with dozens of wins.

Multiple people here have pretty much been forced to accept these types of debates when we see them, as we all know you’re just going to Hoover them all up in a mad rush for whatever points you can get.

One or two now and then are fine - it’s the 9 that concerns me here.

There enough dump people in the world that don’t forget to breath that tells me it’s not a learned function.

The ability to set a reminder on google calendars is more important than remembering a birthday?

The bigger question is who is if solipsist nails someone - are they playing with themselves.

I’m also going to say this out loud now, as this genuinely infuriates me. While I’m sure RM objects to having debates delete and being robbed of hard earned forfeits; there are currently 9 type1 debates that somehow RM was somehow able to accept all. That’s probably over 90 free points that other normal users would otherwise have to earn by debating. If this were 1 or 2 debates here and there, or multiple people had accepted them, or if it was type 1 debates earning 3 points each; I’d not be too concerned; but this is 9 debates, that’s a major imbalance and has a major impact on the sites point tallies.

These debates are spam and abuse of the site as a whole - both of which violate the CoC every bit as much as personal attacks - of which several debates I have accepted and reported have been deleted. They’re unfair to every other genuine and legitimate debater who’ll have to debate their way to those same 90 points.

While I like the idea of a MEEP in general, By the time the meeps been put up, people have voted, the rules have been applied; its probably, going to be too late to do anything about it - and given the impact right now is actual, not theoretical - I think theres legitimate reason to act now.

It’s not a meep thing specifically, but the CoC needs to be uodated with voting restriction information.

While I would like to see a Meep installing myself as vice emperor; I would like to see a meep about unmoderated debates.

I think troll debates are getting a bit silly now, given that we have a lot of battle debates, I think it could be useful to have a minimum moderation standard for the battles. I can prep some peiminary text

Objective just means that it’s not based on feelings; so something can be specific to humans and not universal, but not based on feelings. 

The most important thing I know?

C++

If you’re not willing to reply in a debate, and you’re not good enough at debating to be able to argue that there is at least a reasonable doubt, then quite frankly, you’ve already conceded the point.

I’ll let you stick to noop sniping and accepting spam debates banned people, I’ll look for someone capable to debate with.

If you think I will win on the grounds that you cant show that there is any reasonable doubt that the earth is not a sphere; then quite frankly, you must not have a very good argument.

That’s exactly what I said.

If all you have is insane conspiracy theories together with unsupported and unevidenced speculation that you can even introduce a reasonable doubt could even be possible, then I will take that as a hard concession that you have nothing plausible.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard.

It means that if there is any reasonable doubt that the earth could be flat - then it must be considered plausible.

A more stringent standard would be “unreasonable doubt”, which would include “aliens may have zapped our brains to make us believe it”. So if you’re unable to show reasonable doubt, and want more - then you’re basically trolling.

I would be happy to crushingly destroy you in a debate on the subject.

Why? 

An observer, and the top of an object form a right angled triangle on a flat plane; the angle for the observer is always positive.  It’s impossible for that triangles to form a negative angle unless the object is below the plane. If there is a negative angle, then the object is either not above the plane, or the plane is not flat.

The angle of the sun, and moon, together with their angular size does not change for any observer, regardless of where they are; the sun is only visisble in half the earth at any given time. The only way the first two conditions are possible for observes of the same orientation (ie flat plane), is if the distance to the sun dwarfs the distance between the observers due ( tan(o/a) would mean delta a produces minimum deviation due to o being appreciably large). For that to be the case, the third example would not be possible.

Also, if you multiple people triangulate the position of the sun at the same time of day from different vantage points - they all come up with different numbers - indicating they do not share orientation.

This is basic sin/tan maths.

A good example is what I covered in this debate:

I tend to be more practical - I don’t think either are particularly useful to real discussions.

In what context.

Its a form of tautology. So it’s correct. What you “sum”, is up in the air, but if there is something that cogitos, it sums.

But this way I can have a mastabatory narcissistic me-fest in public!

@RM

Unforunately, what you just said is mostly meaningless nonsense.

The issue, say, with flat earth is that it is objectively untrue, and anyone who has any understanding of geometry, observation and 8th grade trigonometry would know it’s both untrue and absurdly so. 

These are genuinely pseudoscience - as they present themselves as scientific but often are normally unfalsifiable arguments where real evidence and objective measurements are dismissed in favour of unsupported speculation, and the goal is not truth but to support whatever pre-existing conclusion one may have.

You shouldn’t forget everything you know; this is absolutely absurd; and I guarantee you that those who believe in flat earth simply forget everything they know when it’s convenient - only to remember it when they feel their point is valid.

To establish facts - you start from a basis of known facts and information - and build up from there; using this method, you seek out the sources of potential error and bias and seek to correct them.

Bump

Plus every so often the people who infuriate you end up annoying each other....

I don’t think he has the mental capacity to be obsessed with you and me at the same time; which may explain why he’s been less mad at you.

If you google “online debate” ddo shows up still

One day, the tag feature is going to get broken and no one will notice because everyone is blocking everyone else.

If you search online debate - then you get ddo

I don’t think it’s that much of an issue, I don’t think I’ve seen any last minute votes that changed the outcome, that we’re not sufficient or obviously invalid votes in the last few hours of a debate since magic got banned. I’ve posted a few votes in the last few hours a couple of times due to time constraints, but I don’t see it happening often or being abused.

It looks like someone said my name into a mirror three times again, and summoned me to this thread.

Anyways, I think having an automatic extension to the voting period would be good - not necessarily 36 hours, but at least 12.

Most debates would be largely unchanged, and even if votes were extended, it wouldn’t delay thins too long.

Now a bigger issue is that of being unable to change the winner of a debate after the fact.

Owing to this, it’s possible for last minute votes to be cast that change the winner unfairly.

MagicAintReals debates are a perfect case in point.

To be honest, I can see the point of PMs; it does strike me that blocking someone and then repeatedly messaging them/tagging them or mentioning them seems a little counter productive.

To an extent, I find it hilariously passive aggressive. I have this image of someone at their computer and phone saying “ahah! I have got you now! Now you will now have to suffer the torture of hitting the reply button and then having to remove the name because you’re blocked! But only for the first 3 times you do it and you remember your blocked, then you can simply just post a message! Take that!”

If RM posts in the forest, and there isn’t anyone around to read it, does it still mention Ramshutu?

I think we should petition the DebateArt.com to make it so that If you block someone, you would be unable to message, or tag that person...

Asking for a friend...

If you block people in order not to have to interact with them, why do you continually and repeatedly attempt to interact with the people you block?

Show me on this doll where Ramshutu touched you.

Apparently I’m a sadistic, psychopath and also now apparently like a rapist.

#TripleThreat! 

Gotta say though, I would absolutely love to have the time and energy to be as obsessed about you as you are about me; but alas I have a job and a family; while spending time in my planning cave to plot your downfall sounds appealing - as I’m sure it has an Xbox cubby and pool table. I have more important things to concern myself with than crushing you - such as the jar of pickles at the back of my fridge and whether they are still good to eat they were good a couple of months ago, but I’m not sure about how, they’re over a year old and whilst they’re pickled there’ll be a time

when they aren’t good any more, how much should I wait before throwing them out - are they even still there, has by SO removed them orneaten them without my knowledge? this is frankly a much more important issue to me.

Read this whole thread! It’s full of gold!

Let star with somethingimportant and critical to understand. The Jim from the office avatar was also totally subtly trolling you and had nothing to do with Alex; bless him, he just copied me for some reason.

While I find your over-the-top calculon-like soap opera reactions objectively hilarious - hence the subtle trolling, I think you’re vastly overstating your own importantance and impact to other people: especially me. My level of interest in your affairs is actually nominally limited to the lighting up of my news feed with all the times you mention me in comments, debates, votes etc, and the occasional resulting chuckle.

Dont get me wrong, I find your infatuation adorable; but frankly how do you expect me not to subtly troll you when you keep saying my name into a mirror three times.

Hell, I am more interested in getting thess quote into the iconic quote board than anything else. Psst Supa!

Why on earth would I be salty about losing a debate? I got reasonable and useful feedback, and I work under the assumption that other human beings may not view things In the same way as I do. Everyone told me my insults and disses were much better. I don’t necessarily agree with the loss - but I appreciate the votes and the feedback.

Of course, I could throw a hissy fit, accuse everyone of grudge voting me, or not understanding my genius, then follow them around opining how they are evil, sadistic people who deliberately  down vote me out of jealousy/spite/maliciousness...

But really, that would just be broadcasting my own immaturity and insecurity.

It would the internet equivalent of shouting about how large your weenie is whilst doing naked jumping jacks. Your mouth says 12 inches : flopping flaccid cocktail weeny says 2.5 tops. (note: this is a metaphor not an insult).