RationalMadman

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

Vote please.

The answer is no. No site has anonymous reporting that is reputable to the highest mod level. It is important that mods know who is reporting for the wrong reasons and also who is reporting well so as to then contact the reporter(s) about the issue if the mod feels the reporter needs assurance the issue is being dealt with of if the reporter themselves is in the wrong somehow (or just to elaborate on context).

IF IT'S ANONYMOUS, IT WILL ENABLE DDOS ATTACKS TO GO UNANSWERED OR NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE EVEN THEIR IP OR ANYTHING!

I vote no

I vote no.

I vote no.

I vote no.

Mhmm, good to know. Is that it? Yawn.

Do you have a special cell where you yell 'sick fuck' and other blasphemies all day long until you piss the wrong guard off and they give you your non-caffeine dose? :)

What's the matter, are you disgusted?

Yes I do and I invite your wife and mother in on the weekly, they put a sign up saying 'too hot to disturb'.

I admit to nothing of the sort, I admit to being the best debater you have ever faced.

Satan is actually Satana,  the name was made Masculine as iterations of the Bible were verbally sent down. I can semi-prove it but the evidence is murky.

Bible is written by and for Lucifer. Lucifer never became Satan. 

Lucifer lies, lies, lies but because he's inferior to Satan (who is God and she has no technical 'name' but I call her Fiora), he can't properly lie as Satan forces truth through and possesses Lucifer (who was Jesus) from time to time.

The first commandment was 'Put no God above me' and all following scriptures, be it the NT, Qur'an and whatever else, are either lies if they say 'only God' or referring to the only God beneath the nonsense. The Gods of all religions are pieces of a puzzle. The real God is the answer/solution.

He meant Vagabond and was referring to lack of strike-through on the original account. That is because the mods don't have a soft-ban method that doesn't IP-ban you if they ban the other account. I'm quite certain of it.

Do you consider yourself to be more Frank, Claire, Doug or Seth from House of Cards? In fact, can you rank the four relative to you?

I will do me (1=most):

1. Frank

2. Doug

3. Claire

4. Seth

You can find fault with a person without bullying them. I am not going to address the rest of your BS. Yes, that's right I'm calling your whole post bull fucking shit and if you report this and cry to bsh1 you're not even reporting bullying, you're reporting the softest kind of harsh truth-telling there could be beyond politeness into the realm of what you're describing.

You see, there is a huge abyss between constructive criticism, neutral criticism, destructive but polite-enough criticism and taunting and malignant ego-crushing. You're not wrong though, it is least likely that the ego-lacking end of the spectrum ever would report or concern themselves with bullies. They'd cower 'around' them and dance elegantly such that they don't clash even if that means taking a good fingering against their will from their boss. That's bullying, buddy, and it gets worse than that IRL but let's stick to online. You need to understand something, many bullies are narcissists, many narcissists are sociopaths. A non-narcissistic non-sociopath never ever is a bully but you can get bullies who are one without being the other. There is another variant, one I call an inverted narcissist sociopath. This kind is prone to see themselves as unabashedly average and as all humans should be and any and all other humans as either normal or subhuman for not conforming to the standard said inverted narcissist sees as correct to be.

You will also find that if you study the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths that all bullies are part-sociopath but that the most efficient ones are disciplined psychopaths and in many ways I displayed psychopathic behaviour and strategy in order to defeat the sociopath who I won't name so as to not violate CoC.

You need to comprehend just what this being is; they thrive as others are in agony emotionally. They adore the lack of control and power the other has to prevent their abuse. They flow with what the norm consider 'okay enough' and push it to the maximal edge of bending hoping they don't snap it so that they can do it again and again and if their victim ever snaps in response they can point and say 'angry freak, danger to us get them banned'. I have met many like them IRL and online. ASPD and NPD are not at all as rare as the stats make out. You need to realise that they're also (both) the most capable of all disorders at actively masking that they have it. I would know, I definitely have narcissism but psychopathy/sociopathy is either something I never really had strong enough or something that simply I lack and 'wish I had' at times. I comprehend it, how they work and the way to defeat both kinds of emotionless brute but neither the sociopath nor the psychopath fits me well. I'm definitely more psychopath than sociopath though, that's changed with age (was the other way around when I was banned on DDO and most of my teen-life post-14 I'd say).

I don't give a single shit if it is the narcissists who end up being the ones who have most issue with bullies and are the ones to stop them. I adore that I am one because it makes me a hero even if I am a villain to the bully and that's a great thing to be.

Bullies are sociopaths, I fail to understand your point.

Everything is allowed on DDO of that sort now as Airmax can't be bothered with those types of rules being enforced etc so he's been used to a different environment than DDO's actual policy.

Actually revealing person-specific moderation process was explicitly allowed due to the second-most-recent update on CoC. So you don't have to worry about doing what you just did. :)

It is actually the user who has the right to reveal it, not the mod, unless the user is banned then the mod holds the right.

The answer is yes, the reality is no.

Why? USA and Russia never ever will be at war. They are the heads of the New/One World Order, they are also the heads of keeping the Round-Earth Deception a success. They never, ever will fight despite what the News suggests. Would you fight the second biggest bully in the playground if he/she actively helps you stay in power in a symbiotic relationship? Of course not.

You are just angry, and frankly I am happy that you're angry. You should be angry given what you did to me with your resolution and debate-tactics. You should be frothing at the mouth over the fact I could have played it so well in a situation you were so sure I'd have no way out of.

Then pay the price of being a non-negotiable... Gerbil :)

You want to play alone in the sandpit against the scorpions? So be it but don't come calling on your saviour-lizard when you feel like it.

Do you know the difference between lying and having a misconception close to the truth, the separation due to subjectivity/flaws in thinking?

Get all votes removed and I'll be on your side. Admit I decimated your case via thrusting the BoP totally onto you that you thought your semantic-plays would thrust irreparably onto me and that all voters so far have not comprehended how well I played it to the degree that you could not win your 'invincible resolution' or so you thought. :)

It is sooooooo supported by my R1 sources though.

Do you know what makes something socially constructed? Aside from that, when I used the sources I explained how the source proves it and what to look for in the source. I didn't say 'look in my source for it saying they're socially constructed' I said 'here look, North and South are the only real poles due to the axis along which the Earth rotates' etc etc and it would always be directly useful, extremely reliable (although NASA is actually a government-endorsed fraudulent franchise) and unlike you never once used a source for the sake of it unless you consider my R3 ones for the sake of it as I didn't really need them, they just added reliability.

So if he takes out the words 'explicitly' and 'exactly' and pastes the entire rest of his RFD and votes the exact same points you admit that you have no crying left to do about his vote, yes?

I don't give a shit what you say, all the voters lied about how I defeated you, just cry more and see that they all misinterpreted who had which burden of proof and how annihilated you were by me on an otherwise unwinnable debate as Con.

You are just jealous that they all admired me while voting against me and pick on the one guy who thought we tied on arguments.

When I used the source he mentions, it immediately proves that the axis of Earth's imaginary rotation is in fact only along north-south and that west-east places on Earth have neither poles nor validity beyond social construct.

On all other sources my sources genuinely were saying what I was saying, but that particular one required a tiny bit of interpreting what there being only 2 poles meant which I do for you before I give the source-quote.

Dude, you want him to remove the words 'exactly' and 'explicitly'? He can do that, paste it and get the vote completely allowed.

The Moon is not the Earth. The assumption that the Moon is the same kind of thing as the Earth is just that; an assumption. 

The Earth, literally, is pear-shaped even according to NASA. The Southern Hemisphere is undeniably larger than the Northern one. The question is just how much and why that would be if their story of our origin and way of being a planet are all true.

Dude, all voters so far have misinterpreted how destroyed your case was by my liquidating of there being any Western or Eastern Hemisphere in actuality. You are the lucky one with lax vote moderation. You need to learn to accept interpretation of voters of your arguments won't always agree with you. The fact that they do agree with you and that you're winning makes your whining all the less justifiable.

Do you understand that they were saying my sources better supported my case in direct ways? Do you understand that if there is a scientifically proven North Pole and 'South Pole' (Now that we're out of the debate I don't need to pretend I believe in NASA or there being a south pole) but no 'West Pole' or 'East Pole' and neither a NW, NE, SW nor SE Pole then it follows that the 'Western Hemisphere' and 'Eastern Hemisphere' are completely arbitrary social constructs since they are merely added on to give a horizontal/longitudinal to the vertical/latitudinal?

Can anyone please vote here.

Even when he wins, he is filled with rage and fury as the voters cheer me on in my glorious defeat.

Get over it, Raltar didn't like how you used your sources and he wasn't the only voter to vote that; nmvarco also voted that way.

You do realise you're not the first to say these things? I've heard it (when I say 'I' I refer to me and other intellectual flat-earthers) and the issue is that the side making excuses for direct proof against them is framed as being the flat-earthers when it's actually the round-earthers.

On top of that, why is it that they say the Earth is a pear? Why is the south, even to them, undeniably bigger than the northern hemisphere by a huge enough degree to admit the Earth would be a pear and not an apple? Why do planes between Africa and Aussie/NZ always ALWAYS stop over in the middle east? The default flat earth map was made by the flat earth society or endorsed by them and it's wrong because it shows South America and Australia very far away from one another but in reality it's the gap between Africa and Australia that's the way we find out just how disproportionately bigger the South of the world is than the North (I struggle to say 'South' here as there is no South Pole, at all).

The 'odd' is not unintentional.

OverDosing Debuking or OverDosing Deception or something.

Do you mean forwards and backwards? When it says curvature it means the other way of curvature (left to right along the horizon) even on a very high-flying plane that's always completely flat.