Ramshutu

1.) You are confusing me thinking that their behaviour is not indicative of malefeasance because of what it is, with me being ignorant. For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result. I mean come on, your argument makes no sense: the mods are up to no good because they go around sneakily asking for powers in conditions for which you assumed the worst  transparently - in public - and accepted the result? GADZOOKS! TREACHERY IS AFOOT.

Im sorry, but this is just ridiculous if not outright irrational paranoia. That’s unsupported by any actual public behaviour..

2.) Yeah, by talking to them. If it was just you reporting votes, your power to abuse voting would have been taken away and everything would have remained the same. Everyone else talking about the voting rules and restrictions before and after. The voting rules would absolutely have changed anyway and, to be fair, almost nothing has really materially changed on the voting front from before. People are being less pissed off now simply because there aren’t people like you deciding to report every individual vote.

3.) On the 15 or so “community” orientated discussion forums I’ve frequented in the last 23 years , every single last one of them had some power hungry Nazi with a big head abusing their power, at least eight times every year - at least according to the multiple keyboard toting freedom fighters like you that boards like this tend to attract. I’m repeatedly calling you histrionic, because this thread, your reaction throughout is literally one of the most stereotypical and repeated behaviour that it needs an equivalent of Godwin’s Law.

Do you know what also gives the impression of not being malefeasant, and abusing their power? Not being malefeasant and abusing their power.

The Site owner, and the mods are not perfect, but there is nothing they have ever done so far that makes me think anything has been done in any sort of bad fair to any degree. 

This is just histrionics. You’ve decided that the mods just asking about a scenario - is evidence that they’re up to no good. A decision you don’t agree with, they’re evil. You don’t like the voting policy, so you decided to be a dick and report everything, and now you’re losing your mind and throwing your toys out of the pram - yet again - because you refuse to deal with your problems like a grown up.

This is a community site, run by former members of the community, and is doing a pretty good job in engaging with the community about governance.

All you seem to be doing is throwing self-important hissy fits whenever anyone says or does something you don’t agree with. 

i mean that if the coding that handled generating (or not) a rating for a debate was exactly the same code that handled who can or can’t vote on a debate and was inseparable and unreusable in any meaningful way without being part of a judge debate - we’d know, because this site would be an unusable, crashing shitty mess.

With due respect; I highly doubt DebateArt has intrinsically coded a judge debate user and vote handling inseparably from the rating generation.

The reason I can reasonably surmise this, is that the site doesn’t feel like it’s been written by a complete and utter cretin.

I’m sorry, you’re argument is a nonsensical attempt to change the goal posts. I don’t think you know how to actually approach the logic, so you’re just  hurling out nonsense.

In this thread, whenever I say “the road runner”, I mean “reality”, I have decided to define “the road runner” to mean “reality”. 

You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it: but if you understand that when I use the phrase “the road runner”, I mean “reality”, then I have defined the word successfully In the context of this thread whether you like it or not.

Alternatively, if I use the phrase “the road runner”, and you don’t know what I’m talking about, despite repeatedly telling you what I mean: you’re a buffoon, who isn’t capable of even the slightest fragment of abstract thinking.

so which is it? Are you a buffoon who doesn’t get abstract thinking: or do you understand that if I say “the road runner” in this thread - I am referring to reality.

i think you slightly misunderstood. I mean that if the debatecis 7481- 4, just delete the vote. If the debate is 29-28, and the vote is removed within a day or so of the debate finishing: you’ve changed the outcome and the mods havent given enough time for whoever’s vote they removed to correct it.

In such a debate, the voter whose vote was removed should be given a few days to correct it. You could treat it a bit like a “judges” debate at that point, but configured so that only the voter who’s vote got removed, and everyone who has already voted are configured as the judges - so only that one person can revote.

It’s no more arbitrary than selecting any particular meaning for any particular word. That’s just your excuse for not being able to provide any argument.

If I say that whenever I say “the road runner”, I mean “reality”, that’s a specific meaning in the context of this thread.

If I say “the road runner exists”, and everyone knows I mean “reality exists”, then I have absolutely managed to define “the road runner” to mean reality in the context of this thread.

That is the road runner of this argument.

In the context of this thread, when I say “the road runner”, I mean “reality”. I absolutely have the power and ability to specifically define what I mean when I use a particular word.

In this thread, when I use the word “road runner” I specifically mean “reality”, that is now a definition that I will use and adhere to throughout.

The word “road runner” may not be used in this way outside of this thread, or by anyone else in this thread: but I will say now, whenever I refer to the phrase “the road runner”, I mean reality.

In this thread if you deny that “the road runner” exists, you deny reality exists, and as you define God as reality - you also deny reality exists.

The error you are making is as follows:

Reality exists.

For the purposes of this thread, I will define “The roadrunner” as “reality”.

 

Because (in this context of this thread) I have defined “the roadrunner” as reality, it is a truism to say the road runner exists.

Therefore: Reality is under attack by Wile-e-Coyote.

The mod has a scenario which could only be meaningfully resolved if they could see PMs. That much is true, regardless of how you want to interpret the word valid. 

You may may not feel, that this would be a valid scenario for some level PM access (and hell it could have meant access granted by the owner by the sender or recipient - but that’s an aside), but I think it’s fairly clear that’s not what I meant.

Now onto to the straw man: you are confused, my objection to your histrionic toy throwing, and claims of some outlandish abuse of power is because these claims are in the face of a moderation team who solicit opinion, act upon the conclusions of popular opinion and have generally engaged more with the community about regulation and policing than any other community forum I’ve seen, made by a moderation team I’ve frequently seen come down on multiple sides depending on the circumstances, all claimed by someone who is obviously over spinning and over hyping his claims, and whose last major objection to a particular moderator decision was to oppose a change that got him caught abusing the system previously.

The issue is, that in both the specific and general examples: I dont realistically expect human moderators to be more open, or reasonable than they have been, and your continued hyperbolic “sky is falling” drama is spinning even the most reasonable or trivial of actions way out of proportion.

Get a nice paper bag, take a few deep breaths, and calm down

If 

Wait, you mean that evil, horrible example of  a moderator, had a valid hypothetical situation which could only be resolved if PMs were accessible to mods in limited situations put the issue of moderator access to the community and explicitly understood the issue the community would have should they fundamentally object, and abided by the community decision.

Yeah: the guy is basically Stalin....

It’s not a concession - 99.9999% of the time there is no impropriety and malefeasance - just a tonne if drama generated because one or more individuals don’t like a decision, or the feel the rules are unfair and perceive it to be malefeasance and won’t shut up arguing it.

In reality, I have not seen Bsh1 rule one single way invariably, or for one single person invariably, and the fact that everyone seems pissed off at him is probably an excellent indication of how fair he actually is. 

As long as the rules are enforced in a consistent way,  there’s not normally a problem - and the very fact that bsh and others have accepted the possibility that another moderator is required to defeat the perception of impropriety indicates to me that things are at least heading in the right direction for the right reasons.

if Bsh was an asshole (or at least further up on the asshole spectrum, outer-starfish?) this thread wouldn’t exist.

“Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.”.

I don’t think the voting period needs to be extended for public voting: just that if a vote is removed an hour before the debate ends, and the removed vote changes the outcome, the individual voter should be given a few days to log on and have the ability to fix or amend the vote. 

Wait, are you seriously asking why an innocent person would defend themselves if a lying asshole made repeated false accusations? That question answers itself, don’t you think?

At this point it’s actually morbid curiosity. I mean, literally every claim is not just wrong - it’s so obviously demonstrably false that no one in their right mind, would have made those claims in the first place because they are so nonsensical that anyone with a brain knows that they’d be called out on them and look like a fool.

Why on earth would you post a link to a debate, and then claim only one person voted pro, when more than half voted pro? It’s like you don’t care what the facts are, 

Walk us through the logic. Why did you claim that only one person voted pro, when it’s so obviously horseshit, that everyone can see it’s horseshit?

At this point I’m generally interested in how you have decided to make such absurdly false statements.

Seriously what type of decision making process of psychology makes you look at a debate with 4 votes for pro: then claim it has 1 vote for pro? 

Why would any rational human being, with a fully functional brain, and is emotionally healthy look at someone voting on debates and claim that they only vote one way - despite them voting the other way multiple times? When a litany of these examples are provided - you repeat the same lie -it’s not like people won’t notice the lie.

Do you just invent this nonsense in your head because it sounds good, then not bother to check whether it’s true? Or do you check whether it’s true - and decide to lie anyway?

I honestly don’t get it.

Did you post this type of stuff thinking that I wouldn’t call you on how ridiculous absurd it is? Do you think you could make bullshit claims and no one would notice? Do you think “gentle readers” won’t notice that you’ve said something, and the facts - in black and white - show something else.

Evil Ramshutu with his evil voting schemes yet again reveals his true colours by voting against the liberal position of progressive tax in a debate flat tax! He’s so transparently an anti-conservative ringer!

https://www.debateart.com/debates/297?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

These multiple votes in favour of conservative and theist positions show just how dishonest Ramshutu is, as he NEVER votes for conservatives! It’s a good job Ethang has revealed my secret plan, by pointing out that I (and three others), and I alone (aside from those three) was the only (one of four) person who voted in favour of the person who was present for the debate! That one forfeited debate out of the 74 votes I’ve cast so far, reveals my master plan of being a ringer who only votes unfairly for liberals and atheists in forfeit debates where it is arguable who warranted the awarding of points.

Drat and blast! I would have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for you pesky kids!

That debate had 7 votes. 4 were for pro. The gentle reader above looked at it and realized you’re a liar.

Seriously, please walk us through why you decided to look at a public debate that you linked, saw that every single person who looks at it could see with their own eyes that over half the voters on that debate votes for pro; and then decided to lie, and say that I was the only one who voted that way.

Please, explain why you decided to lie about something that is so easy to show is a lie? I mean, normally people lie about stuff that’s hard to get called on: but you straight up linked a debate where EVERYONE can see that what you said is flat out bullshit.

Ethang is in love with me, and isn’t emotionally mature enough to be able to express it healthily.

Yeah no one else on that thread voted for pro... except for three other people. Vote 2,3 and 5 were all on pro... please stop lying.

so, while ethang5 can only post an example of some voting against someone who didn’t turn up, let’s look at this debate:

one side posted “forefeit indicating that they were waiting for arguments”, forfeit votes are punatitive measure against those who start debates and don’t turn up.

But thank you for showing everyone that the worst example you have of my voting - is me voting against someone who started a debate, and didn’t turn up, vs someone who at least was there!

hahahahahahaha

I voted against the side that didn’t post anything - unless both sides forfeit every round. I do that everywhere. 

You’re really reaching if literally the only example of a bad vote is where I voted against a forfeit debate where someone was there and the other was not.

Yes. With my vote history clearly showing I vote for different ideological positions, and both for and against specific people, everyone can see that I’m definitely, definitely a ringer.

Keep trying to convince yourself though, it looks great.

There’s only so much I can do, when I produce multiple links of me voting in favour of a conservative or theist position: and you ignore every link, post no evidence, and simply say “no, you still voted against the conservative”,I can’t really help you if you’re that biased and deluded you can’t even give up a lie when called out with evidence.

“This horse is a gift for how bravely you fought in the war”,
Agamemnon, 2000bc 

“I see no ships”

• Admiral Lord Nelson 1805
  

“I am not a crook”

• Richard Nixon, 1973
  

“Tis but a flesh wound”

• The Black Night, 1975
  

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

• Bill Clinton, 1998
  

“There are no American Tanks in Baghdad”

• Muhammad Saeed Al Sabah, 2003
  

“This was the biggest crowd to view an inauguration in history, period” 

• Sean Spicer, 2016
  

“Ramshutu NEVER votes against the liberal/atheist position”

• Ethang5, 2018
  

You still clinging to the idiotic lie that I never vote against the liberal or atheist position, despite having multiple examples of me doing just that rubbed in your face repeatedly?

Kinda hard to repeat that lie with a straight face when every response is wall of links showing just the votes you claim I never make!

Listening: Chopin or Joplin?

Playing: Chopin or Joplin?

if you say Liszt For the latter I’m going to straight up call you a liar.

In the light of several individual objections, and given how much we’ve been through together, what is your opinion on my voting quality? How would you suggest I improve?

i have a computer, I also have a small child: so an occasional forum post in between chores, a vote while I’m having a poop, or during the morning commute, or time whilst I’m compiling is most of what I have time for. If there’s a really tasty debate that falls on the right day or time, maybe: but not right now. I’m happy being an impartial debate judge right now.

I don’t really have time to debate, plus I’m on a phone most of the time - so I try and read debates and vote. Forum posts are far less time intensive.

Plus occasionally some idiot looses their shit and freaks out over a single vote, and decides because of that one vote I’m an evil asshole who is part of a secret vote rigging cabal. Which is nice.

Is that theee things each?

Erm, no.

Atheists don’t believe that there is a God. We feel the same way about your God as you do about Zeus, and for the same reasons.

This perspective, is often offered by the emotional imature and intellectually unaware, to attempt to rationalize why it is that so many people don’t believe the things you take for granted. We can’t be simply mistaken, because you’re so neck deep in truth you cannot comprehend the idea that someone would not see it. 

No: the reason is we don’t believe, and this sort of nonsense is more about your own sense of subconscious insecurity about your own faith than it is about any other persons opinion. 

Lets keep rooted in biology!

What do you feel is the most interesting of the Pre Cambrian Biota, and why? If relevant, could you explain where you feel it fits into the general evolutionary tree compared to those in the Cambrian?

Are you, or are you not a Lizard person and/or a card carrying member of the Illuminati?

No thanks, I’m good.

I provide evidence that I am dishonest? How?

I mean, you claimed that I never vote against the liberal and conservative position, posting multiple examples of where I have dome

the thing you have repeatedly accused me of not doing, is not really “proving my own dishonesty”.

I mean, every one of these links directly refute your claim:

 

like here - I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/298?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And here I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/183?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

and here I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/219?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And also here I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/73?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

And here too I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/223?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And here I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/206?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And here I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/226?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2
And this I vote for the conservative / thesist position- it proves you’re a liar:https://www.debateart.com/debates/193?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

I understand where your coming from: and don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a genuine requirement to be able to block someone from PM, debate challenging, etc.

My problem with it, is that if there is harrasment, or rule violations: then the person involved should

be banned. It’s a moderation issue.

Less than that? If someone is just angry at you, or sounding off? It’s probably not a moderation issue, and there is probably no genuine reason for you to block them either, other than you don’t like what they’re saying.

if I blocked everyone that was angry at me, there wouldn’t be very many people left: and my fundamental issue is that literally the entire point of this entire website is about disagreeing with what people say, and providing a written argument as to why they’re wrong.

I could have both you and Ethang for accusing me - despite mountains of contrary evidence - of voting one given way. I could

have done that, but it would have been petty and childish. It’s much better to have an argument - that’s the whole point. 

whoops forgot to tag you in the post above!

Feel free to ignore the clear and incontrovertible evidence that you’re wrong, repeat your claim and then call me dishonest.

My links prove that I have take the theist/conservative side of debates 8 times, and prove that I have taken the atheis/liberal side 7 times. You don’t seem to argue that, and you don’t seem to be objecting to anything I said specifically: so apology accepted

I have no idea what distorted agenda, or emotional grudge you have against me - but when you claim I have never voted against the positions I hold, and that is provably false - and I prove it false by sharing at least 8 times out of 15 where I have done just that - the correct response is to apologize.

At this point, simply repeating the lie doesn’t make it any more true, emphatically ignoring every single link in order to simply say their content doesn’t matter, or pretending without evidence that these are somehow phoney or dishonest links that “show nothing”, is quite frankly: hilarious.

I have shared multiple links to multiple debates where I have done the very thing you claim I have never done. If you can’t deal with that, and you have no intention in acknowledging any of them, the that is your own petty biases at work and I would suggest you stop talking before you make yourself look even more dishonest.

To everyone else: I would strongly encourage you to look at the links, you just have to look at the first link I shared to demonstrate that Ethang5 is just making stuff up, probably because he didn’t like a vote I made. 

Its always a tough choice - I would prefer moderator action too the ability to block a user being buffed up. I’ve seen people simply blocking anyone who disagrees with them on other sites.

Note that I also missed this:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/298?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And this.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/193?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

Note: out of my 68 votes thus far, I counted 53 that were forfeits, unmoderated troll/rap battles or inherently neither political nor about theism.

That leaves 15 political/theist debates. In those I’ve voted liberal/theist in these:

1.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/158?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

2.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/204/vote_links/247

3.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/205?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

4.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/208?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

5.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/207?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2

6.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/166?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

7.) https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

So, despite your petulant accusations the fact is that when arguments have been presented I have taken the conservative or theist side more than 50% of the time.

By the win rate do you mean including or excluding the ones  that ended in forfeits....

Ive voted for you when you’ve had the better argument. I’ve voted against you when you didn’t. You raged out at me for not voting for you because you couldn’t believe that I didn’t think you won the debate.

That’s just petulant and childish behaviour and I’m calling you out for it - it’s not the way adults act.

That being said, even after that, I have voted for you in multiple debates because I thought you did better. Don’t be a hater.

I try and vote on EVERY debate, since I started there have been only a handful  of religious debates that weren’t Ffe. Many of them were from Mopac - who is a terrible debater. He’s made the same argument in debates twice that I have voted on. Once he won because his opponent didn’t attack it, one where his opponent made a better and more targeted argument.

Virtuousos KCA debate went the same way - the KCA is a terrible argument, but his opponent didn’t attack it well, and despite me thinking virt is wrong - I voted for him anyway.

There was a bunch of gun debates - mostly the same arguments were presented, but on one case, the pro gun position was much better, and edged it out.

I always vote based on the arguments - and have voted against the side I personally believe multiple times. If you don’t agree or think I’ve made a mistake, feel free to explain: but so far, most of the people disagreeing with my votes are angry, butthurt, arseholes like Ethang who write incedulous posts about how they can’t believe that I voted contrary to their position.

If you want to know why I voted like I did: go to my vote. I literally spend 74823729 words explaining why I vote the way I do.

Easy there  Waldorf. When making stupid and baseless accusations it’s always worthwhile using these little things called “facts” to support your position. If you had, before shoving your foot straight in your mouth, you would have realized that I never vote for the non-liberal or theist positions...

Except for here:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/183?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

and here:

this may have been mentioned, but a leaderboard for votes: and having debates with more than half the rounds forfeited counting towards win/loss - but not ELO (if you’re the winner).

Also, are you looking for design, and implementation assistance?