Total posts: 1,192
Posted in:
I am afraid I am short on time to read the whole thread, but don't worry, the domain won't expire and I keep on paying for the hosting, so the website should continue running just fine. And I will try to work harder on finding the replacement.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
He will remain a catholic or descend into nihilism once he discovers he’s not a Savior.
Before this, he was a taoist that supported progressive social democracy. With pagan beliefs in a Goddess before he switched to Catholicism and began identifying as right-leaning. But his flat earth views stayed the same.
His personality has largely remained stagnant as a conspiracy theorist (The “Revolution” of God’s will).
Or a control freak with a savior complex. (“I’m going to clean up this site with God’s help.”)
He was only controversial only because of his divisiveness. Not that I can talk, given my toxicity from 2 years ago.
Created:
-->
@Umbrellacorp
That's acceptable. But the #1 rule for spreading any misinformation is it has to be believable or convincing.
Created:
-->
@Umbrellacorp
How can no one tell that lucyfemboy and adaptablerat are the same person?
That's not even a possibility.
Trust me
Created:
-->
@Umbrellacorp
What did Adaptable do to deserve being banned?
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Ah, I see.
If an alt pops up in a few days then, then there will be no mystery who it is.
Created:
When zedvictor was banned for 3 days, it was publicized in the moderation logs. And then there were 2-3 threads created in announcement of it.
LucyStarfire’s account was banned mysteriously. With the reason being some inside joke that only Barney knows the context and punchline to, while the actual explanation remains a mystery.
And there have been no changes to the public mod log. Which now raises a question. Why is there only selective transparency, but not open transparency?
Was LucyStarfire banned by request or a separate reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
In debates on this site, intellectual honesty isn’t my priority. I may even deliberately bend the rules and use sophistry, or fallacies as a means to practice.
In forums, I strive to be intellectually honest always.
Created:
Do you realise Savant and Mikal oppose your moderation principles big time?
Their models would still achieve a desirable outcome.
Said differences are irrelevant, if their versions still yield results that are more than acceptable. Probably a lot better than mine.
Created:
We've got to stop protesting every ban and trying to fight every battle. You're just doing your duty as a DART user by standing up for other fellow members, and your rights and I can appreciate that but we're just dragging this thing out. There is no vision or direction in mind to guide this path towards which just raises a fundamental question here.:
What is the endgame?
When I made that thread about the ban on chap470, it was with a deliberate goal in mind. I wasn't standing up for the rights of one user but attempting to get the mods to reframe their whole policy model.: Which is to stop being ridiculous with permanent bans.
Now ideally, permanent bans should be used very rarely in only extreme situations, with formal warnings and short/temp bans being the default consequence.
A short/temp ban is just enough of an inconvenience for the user that it acts as a deterrent all on its own, that doesn't have the everlasting consequence of killing off the site's population.
Realistically, publicizing and complaining about a 3-day ban accomplishes nothing but communicates confusion and indecision for the mod team. They will start to believe we will never be satisfied about anything and then just do what they want. They have at least demonstrated they are willing to negotiate by changing Chap470's permanent ban to a 90 day ban, and then rewriting the reason for zedvictor's ban.
Publicizing and appealing zedvictor's ban is pointless, unnecessary, and futile. The point of appealing a ban should be done with a purpose in mind, this accomplished nothing.
So discuss your enforcement ideas for moderation.
Ideally, Savant and Mikal would be the policymakers if it were up to me. Lemming is also a strong candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I could be remembering wrong. I assumed he edited it to make Adaptable look crazy.
But there's a possibility that the mods saw and deleted it, and then he posted a revised version.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The edited version was acceptable, but he edited it too late. Either it was screenshotted, or the mods saw the original and took action.
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Also, learn Socrates argument, where you avoid stating your position and just attack opponent's. This makes you less vunerable.
This rule backfires if the debate is on-balance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
They need someone to write out their ban prompts because while the reasons aren’t wrong per se, they’re vague and leave room for misinterpretation.
It’s a lack of clarity and transparency.
Zedvictor wrote a shock value poem which was an obvious double entendre for pedophilia.
He didn’t link to anything illegal, he made a super dark joke about subject matter which should be taken seriously
Created:
Posted in:
He wrote a pedophilic incestuous poem.I give him 0 sympathy. He has blasphemed or severely disrespected a faith violating Mary and Joseph many times verbally and he has made lecherous advances to at least 2 female members here that I can think of though one was Lashwnda.Maybe it was only her but I remember some other one vaguely.He talks openly about wanking and more. This must all end.Its late for me, I dont owe you anything more than telling truth.
Adaptable is telling the truth about what zedvictor wrote, btw guys.
Immediately after being called out by Adaptaple, zedvictor edited his post to make Adaptable look insane or like he was lying.
That said, it’s completely possible that zedvictor was just posting for shock value.
No one’s accusing him of anything horrific, people are just upset he would write something fucked up.
However, it’s just a 3 day ban.
Not siding with Adaptable here, just pointing out an observation I witnessed
Created:
Posted in:
Would you be up for a debate about one of your pop culture takes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@Savant
@LucyStarfire
Keep your covers. Play your role.The revolution is coming. The tides will turn. The Lord is with us. ✝️
Adaptable reminds me of the Shaman Lady from Squid Game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Yeahhh, the House archetype/trope is a bit of a cliche. House definitely respects people who do that, like you suggested.
Do you remember this scene?:
Created:
Is the universe friendly, hostile, or something else?
Nietzsche and Lovecraft probably know the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
WyIted is much more fun than that guy.
What’s the difference?
- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TZovvjqSLPU
- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6dguODOCYi8&pp=ygUbaG91c2UgbWQgcHVscCBmaWN0aW9uIHNjZW5l0gcJCcEJAYcqIYzv
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Umbrellacorp
House is not a static character, nor is he OP.
The series demonstrates many seasons of character development, transformation, and growth.
The first season begins as a sitcom medical show and House is seen as a cheeky smartass character.
But the stakes quickly rise and grows more serious, showing that in spite of House's brilliance, he is far from perfect and makes a lot of mistakes. House has a sixth sense that allows him to sniff out whenever there's a subtle problem that is invisible to everyone else. That is House's gift. Seeing problems that no one else sees, not solving them. The true challenge and mystery is overcoming the problem by finding out what it is and overcoming it, which takes the work of his team.
Hugh Laurie brings a sense of quirkiness and charisma that makes the show super-enjoyable. His relationships with his fellow colleagues, teammates, rivalries, and banter is 100% well-written dialogue.
The amount of shit that House gets away with is just hilarious. LMAOOO
Top Moments of House
- House quickly sizing up and outsmarting a patient that sues doctors as part of an on-going scam. Dr. House outsmarted a guy who tried to sue him 🫡😎 #movie #series - YouTube
- House getting revenge on a former college student who snitched on House for trying to cheat on an exam by copying his answers. How It Feels To Be Right | House M.D..
- House treating a patient with black stained hands, realizing that the patient was stealing money from his boss, and then giving the patient advice on how to avoid getting busted. House meets someone with frostbite? #series #tvshow
Please give the series a second chance. House is amazing.
Although, some people may be put off by House because he has a similar personality and sense of humor to Wylted's.
Created:
Posted in:
What qualities about it do you dislike the most?
The show’s premise is not received very well by a lot of people, but there’s still some parts of it they can appreciate.
Created:
He’s not that bad.
His takes are mostly hot garbage.
As a person, he seems he would be easy to get along with.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
It would appear that you and Savant already agree with me on this.
You yourself did say that a warning or a short-length ban is appropriate.
A 90 day duration seems unnecessary. My reasoning is supported in the comment above.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@Savant
90 days?
That is not acceptable. You're giving the maximum sentence to a new user with no previous record.
It should 30 days at the most, give or take.
Now according to the head mod, whiteflame. He says.:
As for whether this warranted a ban, my perspective in retrospect is that a warning or a short term ban would have been more appropriate, particularly for a new member. It's a distinctly negative place for a new member to start on the site, and I don't think comparisons to existing members who have a history of trolling on the site is entirely warranted, but for all my personal and strong disagreement with it, I believe any member who isn't outright calling for violence deserves a chance to moderate their behavior.
Given this. Whiteflame already acknowledges that a ban was disproportionately extreme and unnecessary, and that a warning or a short-term ban would suffice.
90 days is still crossing the line and is no different than a permanent ban in hindsight. Consider this.:
- Mods now have to manually lift bans.
- A user banned for 90 days is unlikely to revisit the site or notice.
- The mods will forget about the user, and the ban will remain perpetually.
There are two reasons why it should be 30 days. It sets a precedent for fairness and consistency.:
- RemyBrown, a user who was banned for the same reason (Antisemitism) only got a 30 day ban. Public Moderation Log
- FishChaser, a user who was banned countless times in the past and has a reputation for posting vile and shock value content, as well as harassing users. He was banned for 30 days after violating an RO by making SA threats. Public Moderation Log
There is a pattern of the mods here giving troublemakers with a pattern of repeated violations a second or three chances.
A 30 day ban on a user with no previous record when everyone acknowledges the rules were unclear is more than reasonable. DebateArt is a debate site afterall, and the platform needs new users.
Vader & Savant. - You guys don't have to agree with this. This is just an opinion-based discussion. But based on the evidence so far. What are your guys' feelings? I believe it's fair, consistent, and reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Meowism and Taoism are synonyms for the same thing.
Cats in Taoism are a re-occuring symbol and trope to symbolize The Yin & Yang.
Created:
Posted in:
I am proposing a challenge to everyone in this category. For this debate, we do at least three rounds with at least 2-day response time. (Can adjust the response time to accommodate anyone.)
This is the resolution.: THBT: Taoism offers a superior path to harmony and wisdom than both religious dogma and secular rationalism.
The ideal contender needs to be fully committed. No concessions. No low effort.
A high-quality debate of actual substance. Anyone that wants to vote are welcome.
We can do Rated or Standard.
Name your terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@21Pilots
Quite frankly. When I compare modern music to songs of the earlier decades like the early 2000's, 90's, 80's, and 70's.
I am truly baffled by the difference, and I am inclined to agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
Happy Fourth, fauxlaw.
I hope you and your family have a great day
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
You’ve got to stop with this self-deprecating humor and focus on having a healthier self-image.
You can still troll and be funny without constantly underestimating yourself. A stupid person wouldn’t have a recreational interest in debate in the first place
Created:
This subject is more nuanced.
Overall IQ is meaningless to survival, under a certain set of circumstances. The type of intelligence that is more compatible with the environment means survival.
A high IQ mathematician that’s booksmart and a genius on paper is unlikely to survive in an area where there’s a high rate of violent crime compared to a working-class civilian that’s considered a grunt, but is street-savvy if education is not valued.
The reverse is also true. In an environment that is academically competitive, the working-class grunt becomes chronically unemployable while the mathematician is more likely to thrive successfully.
Created:
This is kind of like what I heard about Airmax.
Mike is operating a similar way.
Despite his absence and silence on this, I do believe this site will sustain a while longer. Though we can’t be sure.
Savant, David, and Mikal showed a sample of their site’s rough draft. The template has a vintaged, old school theme. Yahoo Answers at its glory days.
Created:
Reminder: This thread is for voting only. No further discussions.
Created:
Degrade me as a dog, say many things to me, votebomb on multiaccounts and get away with it.Yeah you sure deserve modhood.
In-spite of whatever beliefs you think I did, what you think about me, or the mean things I've actually said to you.
The reality is you still dm'ed me, with the intention of recruiting me to your revolution. If you are serious about this, then you will at least consider what I said. You don't have to make a choice right away.
If you decide I'd make a terrible mod, it should be because you've had the time to think on it and came to that conclusion on your own terms.
A decision that you've thought about and actually considered. This is not a guarantee or a promise that I can make things happen, but I'd push for it. Because we share similar views on legislation and policy reform. This could be your only shot at making it happen.
But if you say no right now, which is your choice.
It is not because you think I'd be a terrible mod. It's because you care more about being petty than you do your mission. You would have refused out of spite, out of pride.
Created:
And why would I trust you?In fact look how yoy made this thread to instigate the resistance agianst it?Look how you instigate flamewars in threads or drama by @ing the people you see as having grudges or who will wins the other one up.You are not somebody I trust with power.
This thread wasn't to instigate. This thread was to incite policy discussion.
But it got out of hand and slightly derailed.
The only time I've trolled by tagging people in threads was because I didn't take the argument or subject matter seriously, and I'm largely making light of it. I defended you in dms before you became a mod, and I can show screenshots while blurring out the names and messages of the other people.
When FishChaser was bullying you before you became a mod, I had your back. I took your side before you became a mod, when Wylted was trolling you on a public forum.
Why would it be any different now just because of our personal differences?
Created:
You should have thought of that before treating me like a piece of dirt the 3rd or 4th time over in our history.This time it came after being a sycophantic fake fan the moment I got promoted. I guarantee you that is why you are not getting voted, it is not just your policy. You are ezposed as the site's most severe backstabber but you think I am.In my case it is my policy.
I am not required to choose between you or whiteflame to show that "my loyalty is genuine."
My support and respect are conditional on you being someone worthy of my support. You took it for granted because of your trust issues.
When you made it you versus whiteflame, you failed and then lost my respect.
You chose to be someone unworthy of my respect. Simple as that.
For you, it's always been an ego battle.
You don't owe me your support, and I don't want it.
But if you have any expectations for certain legislation, then there is only one foreseeable outcome that you need for that to happen.
Created:
Your conduct towards me when I was a mod implies you are faking accepting that it is undemocratic.
AdaptableRatman.
While I do express that Chap470's ban was extreme, and that a warning would suffice.
I do believe that your argument about the legality of holocaust denial is sufficient enough to warrant a ban on the subject. People from different countries not being able to participate is enough on its own to make it a consideration, and banning it as an accommodation for everyone is the reasonable solution.
Everyone else here supports absolute freedom of speech. I lean towards a platform that is mostly freedom of speech, but with slight regulations. So I do approve of selective censorship, but as a business marketing strategy.
But the way I see it, you and I are the only ones who have strong feelings about this subject, and are opinionated. Everyone else seems to oppose this form of censorship.
Realistically, the only way I would be able to push or vouch for this is if I became moderator. Because I don't see anyone else pushing for this.
My solution would be to delete any debates or forum threads advocating for it, and to send the person a formal warning. Depending on their history, that might warrant a temporary ban or permanent ban depending on whether they violate the warnings, or their history.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I really don't understand this idea everyone seems to have that moderation should be a democratic process,
The site culture encourages these conversations. There’s always room for discussion on a debate site about moderator decisions.
Anyone who believes mods should be immune to criticism are on the wrong platform.
And when bans on users are publicized, they are subject to scrutiny.
If the mods banned you and gave a fake reason, I am likewise justified in starting a thread and speaking on your behalf. (This is just an example. A hypothetical)
Created:
-->
@Mharman
What are your opinions about the thread so far?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I have restated and expanded it repeatedly for you, but you keep alternating between pretending those words are not there or that they contradict themselves, or implicitly (much like Mharman is doing overtly) that you've never heard of Holocaust denial before. Now your eventual proof of the flaw is I defend myself.
I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you to clarify. Your original statement was unclear and tells me nothing.
There are 2 possible interpretations from what you said.:
- You’re arguing that the association between holocaust denial and endorsing genocide pre-exists before chap470 expresses it.
- Chap470 already explicitly or implicitly argued for violence or genocide, and was banned for it.
Which of these two contexts is it?
That’s the main question of this thread.
Created:
-->
@Castin
@Skipper_Sr
Tagging incase you guys are interested in this thread.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Mharman insulted you, I demanded an explanation. And you were tagged by me 2-3 times, all while ignoring what I asked you.
When you did respond, you were tooting your own horn and using sarcasm to dodge the original question.
You’re clearly too sensitive to engage meaningfully with any form of criticism if that’s seriously the best you can come up with.
That said, I must applaud your mental gymnastics... That you think calling out your shit today, was part of the decision making process for banning someone else days ago... It's simply masterful.
I’ve conducted myself diplomatically in this thread while you repeatedly engaged in bad faith. You’re cracking under pressure because you can’t handle any form of questioning.
Look at whiteflame and Vader’s responses to this thread, and then look at yours.:
Cringe and absolutely embarrassing.
Created:
-->
@Barney
And thank you for demonstrating the glitch in how you justify your decision-making.
Created:
-->
@David
Part 1. Should Dart bring on new moderators?
Yes.
Part 2:
- Lemming
- Savant
- Mikal
- Sir.Lancelot
Part 2. Should the website rebrand its name?
I don’t believe it’s necessary.
Part 3. Yes, the COC should ban slurs.
But the CoC should clarify what it considers a slur aside from the obvious ones because some are divided about whether a word is a slur or not
Created:
-->
@Savant
It's effectively a strawman and a lame excuse to ban someone you disagree with. And if it's the position that Barney's taking, then he has no excuse for not taking a similar mindset to people here who believe and endorsed worse things.
Created:
Posted in:
I’m thinking Mikal will make a great mod.
My choices so far are: Savant, Lemming, Mikal, and fauxlaw.
If all those four made it, that would be excellent in my opinion
Created:
-->
@ultramaximus2
It is denying in the face of overwhelming evidence.
AdaptableRatman is a Flat Earther.
Created:
Do you notice WF as chief mod is letting Barney take all the heat?
Barney needs to be able to take responsibility for his own words and actions, and answered very differently than whiteflame.
Whiteflame acknowledged the complaint and was willing to negotiate. Barney doubled down on the mod original decision, was being inconsistent, and being vague.
Created: