Total posts: 19,931
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
At his worst moments, Wylted is such a tier of... I'd use the phrase 'repugnant to onlookers when reading the posts and/or seeing even the title of a thread of'.
Mesmer was and BrotherD was.
As for others, I don't quite think anyone has directly crossed the boundary who is currently using the website.
How about you and I change topic.
You know I want to badly talk about why you haven't considered the flipside of this thread (the 'Why you should not vote for Wylted' angle) but I'll play defensive only.
Other than my blocking of people, what is it that you fear I will do as President? You keep going to extremes to prove that I am willing to allow censorship (the President can't actually censor, just so we're clear) and turn a blind eye to it even 'whispering' in the mod's ear supporting it.
However, you yourself if you were a selfish voter, would want to post what sort of things? What's it that you truly fear you and your buddies if they got active here couldn't post or talk about? I don't see a situation where I'd oppress you unless you really dug in and bullied someone hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
While your topic was more about free will itself being unfeasible in this reality than about it being held against God's omnipotence, I enjoyed reading that paragraph. It was very well put together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Thats all I said about 4chan. We have a different user base, and the sites intention is different than 4chans, so it has no reason to get that bad. Moderation has nothing to do with it.
How about this, on that point I agree I misunderstood you and admit it was my bad to put words in your mouth though I do insist it was accidental.
I genuinely read what you wrote as insinuating that you were saying 'come on RM, this isn't 4Chan... The mods are doing a good enough job.' I admit now that I misrepresented your point as your real point was more along the lines of 'come on RM, the userbase don't need much moderating, they're much more docile and easygoing than the 4Chan crowd.'
Now that I understood what you said, I can say that I believe those who are like that crowd have started either (recently, within the last few months) to be banned or slowly rehabilitated and I will seek this trend to continue. The majority indeed are not that bad, I won't disagree with you there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ahhhh so this is conspiritorial. You don't have evidence of these racists because they probably don't even exist, so you have to infer that wylteds voter base is racist by calling them "closet racists". This is some good bullsh1t your trying to sell me. Reminds me of all the Trump supporters who cried about cheating in the 2020 election.
No, I am not calling the entire voting base closet racists. It is crystal clear what I said to anyone reading, what you are doing right here right now is genuine gaslighting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So run me a little more through this then.
These secret planners waited until after already having been declared victorious in the election to pull a stunt that would demonise Trump?
Then, they (these evil masterminds) failed to impeach him anyway?
Has it ever occurred to you that Trump may be the evil guy after all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Staged event" that killed a cop and 4 rioters...
How did they pull that part of it off?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
"Hate speech can occur on 4Chan, not here, as you proudly stated. :)"Yeah you did mis-qoute me because I didn't say that.
And I didn't use the quotation formatting either, seriously grow up man.
You said that this site wasn't 4Chan thanks to moderating vile things like (what I concluded) included hate speech. If not, what is it you meant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
"I don't believe that racists will vote for me regardless of if I were to pander to them anyway, they're free to push Wylted if they want, I don't promise a platform if they're planning to suddenly break out with a series of racist vitriol."What racists then are you referring to lol? Anyone who votes wylted? Any examples of racists or were you just throwing sh1t around to see what would stick?
Think of a Venn Diagram.
Racists (most of whom would be closet racists) are within the voting base of Wylted. I can basically not get them to cross over to me no matter what I do, pandering to them is both strategically and morally futile. I stand for something and according to you, so does Wylted.
To me, Wylted shifts with the direction of least resistance and has done during this election, the only possible resistance he could face is with himself replacing Pie but past that what I have seen is somebody with no loyalties, no truth even to how he posts to the opposition and huge flip-flopping tendencies that he flexes as 'nuance' inside of his campaign thread.
I have no doubt that he has attracted all voters who happen to be (closet) racists, I did not say all of his voters are racist. It is you who is intentionally being conniving now, there is no possible way you thought that I meant all his voters are racists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
7: Post 53 is probably the biggest and funniest gaslight of the entire thread. Literally drops my whole point as if I am directly accusing him of animal abuse. Signifying he did not read my response at all. This is not only an emotional response, it's a complete redirect lol.8. Post 75 intentionally mis-directs what my argument is. I am actually saying in the thing he qouted me that we do not have to revert to animalistic survival instincts in an online environment, and his response takes us a a step backwards in the conversation instead of forward.9. Post 82 just drops literally every point I made and says he "doesn't understand". He doesn't tell me what about it he doesn't understand, he just doesn't have a good enough response, so he drops it. He doubles down and stamps his foot about the website appearing toxic lol.10. Post 84 Blatant gaslight. I have paragraphs of argumentation he ignored that already answers this question.11. Post 100 firstly incorrectly accuses me of saying RM wishes to "arrest" toxic users which was completely missing the point, again, I have to assume on purpose. He is not a dumb person. Secondly he says I said 4chan was toxic which I didnt'. All I said was this site was far from being 4chan. He is trying to twist what I am saying in a very manipulative way, the same way he's been doing the whole conversation.12. Post 102 Actually links my post while misqouting me for everyone to see, providing evidence to prove him wrong. lol13. Post 103 Again goes after my intentions, assuming I am insinuating he is a tyrant instead of actually responding to the point I made. More gaslighting.14. Post 113 Again, gaslighting wylted when wylted is going out of his way to prove how he has never made the presidency personal and is only going after RM's policies as president, RM just bypasses the whole argument to spin it as an attack against himself.
All of these points can be summed up as you abusing context or completely ignoring where I do address them.
I did not misquote you, I said you said this site isn't 4Chan and you recognise how disgusting a site can become when moderation is too lax. I didn't write it in such depth as I genuinely thought it was clear in the context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Can I just fully get you to define gaslighting and what your aim is here?
When I read your 7-upwards it's as if you're suggesting I have something sinister behind what I'm doing or saying.
Then, even if I have answered what you say i 'dodged' elsewhere, you link to a post where I didn't answer it to say I dodged it. Furthermore, even if I clarify my stance now, you say 'it's too late to clarify it now haha'.
To me, it honestly seems like you don't have any intention of understanding me nor are you even 'exposing' me for anything. You think you are but you are not.
For example, when I said animal abuse I was really tired and needed a break, also was busy. I read you comparing mods contacting people for interventing to hitting a dog continously until it obeys, which was outrageous to me. However, if I made people laugh at me for it, that's fine by me, it spreads some joy.
You seem to want me to feel bad here or like I somehow dodged something yet later, I returned to address you about the animal analogy and you then say that's toxic and dodging as well. I don't think you know what gaslighting is but the one thing with Wylted I think you will never care to understand is my side of things.
Wylted entered this election posing as my supporter, the first few posts included a scenario where I have to blindly cave into authority and allow harassment or expose private information on a user, what kind of ultimatum is that? From there, Wylted continued to pseudo-support and bait me out to advocate stronger moderation in the religion forums in order to render me 'unelectable' (his own words in that thread, I can give proof if needed).
It backfired and the Religion Forums are among my main support base now, bar a couple users.
I do not 'see racists everywhere' that is you gaslighting me, I said if there are racists here who have been biding their time and waiting for somebody to be in power that would stop them being punished for spreading their agenda, they are going to vote Wylted no matter how much I pander to them so I see no reason to even begin to try and I wouldn't anyway.
I have not dodged the points you say I dodged from point 7 onwards, I just answered them in other posts than the ones you linked. This is actually you gaslighting me, literally. Why are you linking to a post saying I dodged a point that I literally answer a few posts later at most? You do this over and over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The problem is, you don't have any examples of over-moderation working... Because it hasn't. This website is pretty damn dead compared to DDO. So all the examples I pointed to are easily substantiated. You want to increase moderating an already failing system and cannot with evidence actually support how that will help the site's activity. If DDO is a place you consider to be extremely toxic based on some of the threads I posted, DART is considerably "less toxic" (your words) and still is floundering. Controversial opinons (or toxic opinions if you insist on viewing them that way) hands down bring about more debate and discussion and you haven't been able to prove otherwise.
You're right, because it's not over-moderation that worked.
I have never seen the politics and religion forum this active and healthy in the site's history. Mesmer and BrotherD going, Wylted stopping his toxicity (for now) and others I won't name either having gone or heeded warnings and/or engaged in RO type deal has led to actual clashing of ideas, not personal vendettas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
To quickly reply to your last point, I haven't dropped anything. What you're doing is quoting me in a single post, saying that in that one post I didn't address something that either before or after it I already have addressed.
Anybody reading can see what you're doing.
To also quickly reply to your blocking on Disc thing.
There is a rule about discussing the election and campaigning on PMs for candidates and also there is the fact that you were a 'friend' of mine on Discord.
I wanted to remove any temptation because I was really itching to deal with this privately first to see where you stood and also wanted to stop any chance you had at baiting me off-site to communicate about it. I also thought it would be a good idea to see if you made a big deal about it, which you did.
The core difference between bans and blocks is that a block doesn't (unless we're like in love or really close) 'hurt' the one who gets it in any way, it serves to protect the one doing it and the one receiving it generally had made them feel bad in some way or disturbed them. There doesn't ever need to be a justification or right vs wrong type of block.
A ban stops the one banned from interacting with everyone else on that platform within that vicinity. It is necessary to justify it if you want any kind of transparent leadership.
I will get to the rest of your original list later btw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Let's play a game. Let's count how many times RationalMadman has dropped arguments in this thread in favor of gaslighting, or just general laziness.
Sure.
1: Post 12 where RM lightly brushes the idea that I am doxxing him after accusing me of mis-representing facts in the discord, to which I then provided screenshots. There is 0 Attempt to double back and argue against my rationale or my main point in bringing this up as an example. Just plain "I am the victim here, Lunatic is evil"
There is every attempt but in that one post in the thread I focused on what you did against my will regarding my Discord username, avatar and offsite posts. In other words, nothing at all was dodged regarding your thread's topic. I got nothing in those posts I take back. I didn't come unhinged, I showed you what you are like to debate against and right now you're much the same.
So, on my count 0.
2: Post 19 Completely disregards my point about how RM intends to enforce stricter bans, and he instead focuses on trying to make wylted look bad. My point wasn't "who said the worse thing" but he is taking it there because, again, he doesn't have an actual response.
I don't intend to enforce stricter bans, if anything I am the only candidate of the three running that specifically specified that I think bans could be avoided if a lot more integral mod-intervention occurs before either user in a spat goes too far for too long. There literally is no punishment harder than a ban other than legal prosecution if they broke the actual law.
Wylted is bad his approach is sheer laziness and to let the mods do whatever they're already doing yet he also vaguely hints he will defend freedom of speech despite picking 'option 1' in his offered dilemma, which is what a blind-eye-turner would pick.
3: Post 24 ignores my point about how RM is pro-censorship and focuses on the difference between blocking and banning. Purposely missing the point again.
I don't ignore it. In that post I didn't address it because I address it in other posts and I'll address it here and now to make it very clear:
I am not sure what exactly would be severe enough to need to be directly deleted and censored but certain things that would go that far are pretty much already against the rules or have precedent in bans (now, especially after the more recent ones pre-ethang) that highlight clues to, racism is a major one.
I don't believe that racists will vote for me regardless of if I were to pander to them anyway, they're free to push Wylted if they want, I don't promise a platform if they're planning to suddenly break out with a series of racist vitriol. I also will support warnings and gradual punishment over any kind of instantly long ban for such user, reforming over retribution every time. I also would support extended conversations with the users about perhaps what area of their far-right views are completely fine to debate and discuss and which need to be toned down but direct racism I will not offer a platform for, not direct homophobia or the likes.
The primary thing I wish to push mods on is harassment of users, not any particular view.
I have now made crystal clear what I am pro-censorship on and how I wish to go about it. I have already said all this before, very clearly but this is it all in one comprehensive post.
4: Post 29 RM drops all argumentation in regards to my very detailed and evidence ridden post proving that controversy is actually helpful to a debate site's activity to "defend himself" by saying that I was accusing him of censoring all drama. That was not my point, but that's what he turned it into because he didn't have a valid response. Yet again.
I did not drop all argumentation, I have consistently explained the popularity vs controversy balance and why I believe it needs to be carefully balanced and again I support gradual interactions and warnings over any sudden long bans at all.
5: Post 32 In response to the above I directly qoute him and prove how he is actually mostly in favor of banning controversy and his response is to again gaslight me and say that my response is provoked by me being "fragile" and angry about being blocked lol.
You do not know what gaslighting is, that post had everything to do with your approach to being blocked, you are the one who is either very confused or gaslighting here.
I @ you often while you are still typing posts at those moments it was live back and forth and furthermore I often split up my replies topic by topic.
I do not support banning controversy that completely obeys the rules at all, not at all. Controversy that toes the line is where I support the mods to start guiding toxic users to steer away from their toxic ways and be very specific on what to change.
6: Post 44 he assumes my intentions are a clever bait to defame him, rather than respond to my argument.
I still do assume it. You are even relishing in my frustration throughout and despite me not losing my cool at all you suddenly post this:
RM continues to display how emotionally unstable he is. Do you really want someone like this in a position of power on the site?Ironically this experience has influenced my opinions and changed some things for me. Before I viewed Wylted more as a "lesser of two evils" type of thing. Watching them dialogue has actually made wylted seem like a pretty good candidate though. Thanks RM!
This shows that your agenda and core satisfaction here are in making me look bad but I accept that, your deeper agenda is beyond me and you see your attacking and getting under my skin as necessary evils to achieve the ends of absolute 'freedom of speech' which is your overall mission, so I don't take it personal but it is toxic regardless.
I will reply to the less later on, that's enough for now to flesh out. I also am trying to understand some things you say later as they aren't immediately clear to me where you think I dodged a point.
For me the count is 0 now btw but this 'game' you wanted me to play is futile as it involves confirmation bias depending if you think me in a single post not addressing what I do address in another post is defined as a 'dodge'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I am more than happy keeping this thread bumped to the top of the main page, so voters can see what they are getting into with you as a president first hand.
So am I? It's not like my views on Sacha Baron Cohen and how he treated that Romanian village have shifted so that particular thing I don't really take anything back other than the word 'cunt' to you which was unnecessary to have said.
I also have replied consistently to things, you are genuinely the only person who accused me of gaslighting and dodging here, not even Wylted himself did.
So it's a brand new accusation that I will think about how to address and explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
You replied to what I wrote that to 2 minutes before I replied to it. Who is gaslighting now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Well, you do realise I'll fight back right? I'm a bit busy rn but I'll get to it all, each accusation and time you accused me of dodging or gaslighting. I haven't lost any credibility, you're the one who's painting a self-fulfilling image of me here. I will prove it though, I already know if I say this you will say 'there he is dodging' so let me address it all later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Just look at any of your replies to wylted or me in this thread. Rather than respond to arguments logically, you either take it extremely personal, manipulate what the other person has said to make them look villainous, or just drop the argument completely and give some other random statement to make you look like the victim.
To prove that you are not the one gaslighting here, can you please give examples and also what precisely do you think gaslighting it.
That is part of gaslighting but the overall goal is to make the victim feel they're insane and have no clue what's really going on, but yes guilt is a powerful tool in the arsenal of a narcissistic gaslighter and one you should learn how to spot and counteract if you are in a domestic or romantic situation with one for sure (as well as professional).
I don't agree I do quite what you say though, obviously I think Wylted's not a nice guy and has reason to be guilty but I'm not gaslighting him about it, that's just naturally part of me expressing that.
~~
Wylted's post 112 for example Wylted is talking about how all of his arguments towards you relate to how you would be as president, and that he is not trying to dig at you personally. Your response in 113 is a gaslight that pretty much disregards all his actual points and accuses him of lying basically by deciding that his true intentions are different than what is being said. You don't have any actual evidence here. You just don't have a valid response, so this type of blatant manipulation is all you can fall back on. It's rather sad and pathetic.
My response was entirely valid and it is entirely him gaslighting there. For instance, you in this very thread's creation dug into my past even indirectly doxxing who I am on Discord to try and shame me for something I said about Sacha Baron Cohen, as well as pointing out from a long time ago what triggered me to block WaterPhoenix (but it was not a standalone event actually).
This directly should violate and alarm Wylted if he's against digging into my past to shame me but instead he's all for it because it looks like his hands are clean.
If you analyse how he's treated me throughout the entire campaign, across the website not just here but on the Religion Forums too, he has used any means necessary to shame and 'expose' me while playing the good guy. There is one reason why Wylted isn't digging back far enough if he has dirt on me and it's that he's got a lot back on DDO to be ashamed of himself.
I don't give a shit what he digs, says or does. If he wishes to dangle something over me that other people got dirt on me the he has dirt on me etc, then let him bare his teeth. I am ready for anything. I don't go into this expecting respect and mercy from Wylted, I'll give him as much as he gives me and if he decides to utilise others and turn a blind eye, then I won't do that back as I don't need others to make threads for me, I will just do it myself.
You will now say 'but he didn't ask me to make this thread', you're right. What he did was pretend to cease all public campaigning and encourage his supporters to PM and recruit 3 people per one of them to 'his side'. This is his ethos, 'get others to do my dirty work'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Lol this site really isn't that extreme and toxic.
After certain bans of others and reforming of Wylted (for now) it's tame for now relatively. Just takes one wrong member and the mods to be too timid and we get a whole cycle of Mesmer v2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Whenever RM doesn't have a good reply, he just gaslight's the living fvck out of you lol
This is itself a form of gaslighting towards me but I'll accept it since it's a cyclical game until you actually justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
You think the average user is showing this website to their family and friends?
Not with the kind of toxicity and extremism that certain users have/had been displaying, it's a shithow.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
3RU7AL likes to reply big bolded words that get you to search what they mean and understand things, in case you thought that was a suggestion of what the election would be. It's standard communication from 3RU7AL to do so.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
He cannot support anything he says if he means to suggest that women have equal rights in Islam, that is the truth of it.
However, I am genuinely afraid to mess with this religion so I'll shut up for now. I am serious, it is not a joke how violent they will get if they know who speaks against them.
What I will do is just post this, regarding women and Islam.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
Women were very oppressed back then, however he is extremely wrong if he thinks Islam liberated them.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not a major fan of Twitter but all platforms have a right to police their content. However, I don't see an issue with boycotting a platform that you see as wrong in its censorship. That should be your right as well.
Created:
Posted in:
That is exactly why the first amendment was written. To protect all political speech no matter how abhorrent or vulgar you think it is. The number one reason you should not be president of a debate site. Only your views matter, no matter how abhorrent or vulgar I think they
That doesn't apply to a private website. You are probably referring to the spirit of the first amendment and that this website should uphold it.
If the freedom of speech is harmful and even more than the harm of if people believe it, the harm that hundreds (yes hundreds) of less people find out about this website as less sign up and those that do feel too embarassed about the website to show their family and friends, over time it will end up a perpetually dead isolated website.
Created:
Have you ever visited an Islam aisle in a bookstore? About 5% are Islamic, the other 95% are anti-Islamic. LOL!
In order to avoid discussing where I myself have or have not visited, I will say that I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that in a bookstore in any Islamic nation not one single book in any store is anti-Islam unless it is neutrally against religion and even then it will not make the shelves most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
Post 111, is one of the reasons why I changed my mind. It's just an attack. It is saying"Look at some thing that wylted has done bad and may piss off a certain segment of people who would vote for him"It's just an attack. When I bring up your flaws, I am mentioning how they would relate to your ability to be the president. You have dirt on you. I don't care to bring it up, anybody who has been around long enough can point out several examples of your dirt.I don't care about your past though. I won't even bring up any bad things from 2 weeks ago. It doesn't matter. What matters is who you are today. As president you will do the same things David did that has left the site decimated and on oxygen support. He over stepped his authority and went ban crazy, and the site is now almost dead. Your solution to the site being on life support is to do what put it on if support to a larger degree. That is a fact
Let me translate this for others.
When Wylted attacks me, it's not an attack or bringing up my flaws. When he 'hints at' dirt, it is not to say it exists just to mention others have dirt. When he won't bring up things from 2 weeks ago, he's fine with his supporters doing it for him, like this thread itself which he never condemned.
This is all cute.
Now, as for the real Wylted and real meaning behind what he said, he said a whole lot of nothing.
Created:
I'm sure there are thousands of even worse books written against Islam! It's quite a profitable business...
Not really, they shoot you down if you dare.
Created:
Everything you say is always 'but it was sarcasm and trolling' later on if it doesn't suit your agenda.
Every single campaign promise you made is something you'd go back on if it suited you.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
I am curious what you think of these threads:
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
You can attack religion, however you should not go after and harass members.
There is a distinct difference.
The issue with the religion forums isn't the divide between theists and atheists, that would always be there. The issue is the total lack of respect for boundaries. If someone wants to be left alone and another user keeps harassing them, this is inevitably going to either result in that member being driven away or reacting hostile.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@ludofl3x
As an active member that hasn't expressed support for a candidate, I am notifying you so that you take a read of this thread and consider voting me.
Please use your right to vote in this election.
Created:
Posted in:
Your presidency would be the final nail in the coffin to this site
This is from the guy who has repeatedly reiterate that I'd make a fine president should I win.
Created:
Posted in:
If you actually believed that,you would drop out of the race, because I would actually be effective at making that happen, while you are basically a less stable version of David whose over moderation has almost killed the site. Your presidency would be the final nail in the coffin to this site
If stability was the primary and most important factor, I think you and I should both drop out and I can confidently say that as you are my main opponent so I have little reason to not admit that you and I fluctuate at times if it comes to how we feel we how we behave but my instability is still less severe than your. You go on rampages of trolling, even making alts dedicated to it at times, based on sheer impulse. Then, you quit the site sporadically if it suits you as well.
Nobody can predict when you'll next flip around and post a thread supporting me or flip around and run for President, let alone what you'll stay true to.
You and I are both passionate users, though you deny your passion outside of forum games. The stability you speak of is not one iota higher on your part.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I know this is counter-intuitive as I am part of site leadership; but I am attempting to minimize my involvement with the election, so as to not influence the outcome. Other mods may feel different about that, as we are not homogeneous.
I hope that you vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s no world where you believe in free speech more than Wylted
I didn't say I believe in free speech more than Wylted.
I think I prioritise the site attracting and maintaining users for extensive discourse over some extremists within that discourse ruining the entire atmosphere. I also think the rules imply that too, we can pretend that only doxxing matters if we want to but there's more than that which can be toxic and detrimental to the site's popularity and appeal as well as pleasure to use.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a rather radical guy on it, if it were up to me the world would be completely fair, I mean as in parenting the same, childhood the same. One world nation pure fair start in life.
That's obviously unrealistic as things are so am I gonna look out for my own if I can post-death? Fuck yes.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor
@ComputerNerd
@DeprecatoryLogistician
As active members of whom I am not certain which way you'll vote, I encourage you to read the past few posts of this thread and, if you will, all of it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@GnosticChristianBishop
@Dr.Franklin
@TheUnderdog
@dfss9788
As active members of whom I am not certain which way you'll vote, I encourage you to read the past few posts of this thread and, if you will, all of it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
@n8nrgmi
@Fruit_Inspector
@Double_R
@cristo71
As active members of whom I am not certain which way you'll vote, I encourage you to read the past few posts of this thread and, if you will, all of it.
Created:
-->
@thett3
@Lemming
@Reece101
@Benjamin
@badger
As active members of whom I am not certain which way you'll vote, I encourage you to read the past few posts of this thread and, if you will, all of it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@FLRW
Thank you for your support, it means a lot and please be sure to post any final questions here.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Polytheist-Witch
@Outplayz
@zedvictor4
@Lunar108
Thank you for your support, it means a lot and please be sure to post any final questions here.
Created:
-->
@David
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
Hello moderators, assistant mods and ex-mod Chris (still got the crown though, so not certain).
Please understand that if you think I am going to be a thorn in your side, as this is the narrative Wylted has set out, our working relationship will not quite be as you think.
While I am completely open to disagree with you, challenge you and hold my ground, I am also not going to unnecessarily make drama short of you directly ignoring me completely and not making a proper case.
I am here to advocate for users to you, not advocate for users purely against you. There is a difference and I know my role, this election has forced a paradigm where Wylted gets to seem easier for you guys to interact with but please, for a moment, think back to me and back to Wylted.
I have the fortune here of running against Wylted and not Pie, meaning there is more for me to talk about. Can you guys not recall many times when he would directly go against what you ask just to spite you? I am not saying I don't have a temper and not saying I react passively when completely slighted/betrayed but the point is that if we take from this website's start to now, Wylted has shown to never really appreciate rules not even theoretically.
Look at the first Hall of Fame election (I'm sure you guys remember so I don't need to link to it all), Wylted tried to use every tactic he felt worked as loophole to the rules in order to make a cheating campaign to push for Supadudz to get into the HoF.
The saddest part is that this ended up smearing Supadudz so badly that he lost out that first time almost directly due to the means Wylted used.
You need to understand that my opposition to Wylted isn't just 'wants more moderation vs will turn a blind eye'. The dynamic is a lot more than that. You want someone to represent this site for the next 12 months right? I presume it's an annual role. Wylted is either going to go inactive or get an itch to spam troll threads again at some point, he will not respect you or care about how it looks when he does, I will.
Created:
-->
@Vader
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Athias
@MarkWebberFan
Hello there open third-party supporters or in Supa's case swing-vote,
You currently see a 3-way election and Athias is actually probably inclined to vote against me if anything. Nonetheless, I wish to make it clearer why I believe I'd be a better site president than 3RU7AL. This will focus on me, not him/her/them (will use them/they).
- Social
While Wylted has been pushing a narrative that I will struggle to persuade the mods or interact socially, the reality is that I am a member who has been in constant contact with the mods on-site (less so off-site but still absolutely can do that via Discord) from the site's origin. Wylted doesn't have an upper hand there and when you compare that to 3RU7AL, it's not close.
From what I can tell, 3RU7AL uses the website for as little interaction as it needed to exchange the ideas they want to exchange, this ethos is absolutely fine for a member but not for a leading role on the website. I have actually got sway with the mods and my opponent has been banned more recently than me whereas other than that crazy ban September 2020 for me, I don't really believe that my hold on the mods has gone down, instead it's increased over time as I've created rapport with them all to a degree, including assistant mod Ragnar. I don't always agree with or get along with MisterChris but I'd like to believe that he and I can talk at any time if it really comes down to site matters. Supadudz and myself are not at odds anymore whatsoever and while whiteflame is close with Wylted, he also transitioned in exactly as Wylted got banned whereas under whiteflame I myself have suffered 0 mod sanctions.
Here are whiteflame's words on the matter of Wylted vs my influence on himself and Wylted's somewhat delusional response to it:
RM is probably one of the few other people on the site that has been in personal contact with me for a rather long period. He has exclusively done it through the site, but we've had similar discussions. I wouldn't set you two apart so far in that regard. I've known you longer, but that doesn't give you greater influence over me. If you want to claim that direct communication over a prolonged period = a better position to influence me, that's up to you, but you both have that.- WFI appreciate how you are navigating this situation. I've been in leadership positions as well, and have had to use similar diplomatic language.-Wylted
If he reads it as that, it makes you wonder what else he's promising about himself that's exaggerated as well.
As for what Whiteflame said, he has said nothing of the sort about 3RU7AL, I doubt he would. If it comes to who can actually sway the mods, 3RU7AL just doesn't have that kind of interaction and hold on them that you can justify relying on them as an advocate.
- Activity-wise
I am one of the single most active members of the website.
Wylted has significant lapses in activities way beyond ban-times and 3RU7AL is not all that active even when 'active'. One of the main threads that 3RU7AL instigated and keeps alive is just URLs. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5509-wtf-just-happened
This is not an exaggeration, 3RU7AL either posts URLs, a few words of capitalised and emboldened text or some kind of argumentation. There is barely any activity from 3RU7AL showing they understand even the debate side of the website (where this user only interacts in a custom-made environment of cross-point allocation instead of standard voting). This is just not acceptable to be the resume of a site President.
I will be active and have proven to understand and regularly interact with the Debates side, general forums side and the 'unique culture' of the Religion Forums side as well. I have also been active in the Forum Games section, though Wylted has also got expertise there (forum games).
- Filthy tactics
If it matters to you the tactics that one used to win the election, I ask you this.
To avoid needing to repeat myself by a new thing I type, I'll paste a quote here:
Throughout my campaign, I have had to deal with a serious of dishonest, outright filthy tactics from Wylted. It began with him posing as a severely outspoken supporter of me: is Rational Madman a dick? Should a dick be president. following a chat with me about me worrying about him having Covid, after he spoke of coughing up blood due to it. I didn't ask him to do it at all, he did it of his own volition only to immediately enter my campaign thread with such an abusive ultimatum and other cunning ploys, behind a kind and concerned facade, to bait me into admitting things he felt he could use against me or saying something he felt he could quote out of context and demonise me.There has been no shortage of abusive tactics from his side and you even helped me out by actively providing a solution to his promised VP actively harbouring data he'd very likely leak to Wylted and use to further their cause.I have had to deal with such severely deceptive and emotionally draining tactics from his side that the majority of my campaign has been forced to become anti-Wylted though I very clearly am less so that than pro-what-I-stand-for. On the other hand, it is curious that his entire campaign is about him vs me, it is not clear a single thing he stands for other than bribing voters with cryptocurrency the he'll not release unless he wins.
A further tactic was to pretend to avidly support me on researching and pushing forth a mod-involved regime witht the Religion Forum users. He justifies the first with sarcasm and the later ones with being pro-me-defending but not me being president.
Wylted's plan backfired and the Religion forums are now my main voting base most likely, so it's not even clever tactics, just dirty.
Do you want a president like that? Of course you don't, that's why you want 3RU7AL as you see them as honest. The problem is that I am not dropping out and it's not an ego thing, if I really thought 3RU7AL was as good as I am in other departments, I'd drop out and endorse, genuinely. I do not want a Wylted victory at all but I also believe that I am better suited to the role than 3RU7AL is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I know you didn't say arrest them. You again missed the point just like you did with the animal thing lol.
No, you are just poor at conveying what you mean, I like to clarify.
Your hitting a dog analogy was animal abuse, so unless the dog was the user what was the point you were making then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I understand that tactically worded hate speech is inside the rules though, I didn't deny it.Then why do you think it should be bannable?
Should be that you don't spread hate speech, I didn't say it should be bannable if you're just discussing an idea, very iffy tbph.
You're constantly digging at an extreme grey area to paint me as a tyrant, it's quite pathetic really. If a user bases their vote on allowing hate speech they probably dislike me for other reasons and the feeling is mutual.
Created: