Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
In other words, can we prove logic is valid, or do we just have to assume that it's valid out of necessity?
Join the club!
More serious answer, given that your argument can be pretty much be used to say anything can't really be valid we rely on assumptions or axioms as a baseline of when we have conversations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Why are you congratulating yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It was just meant as an example of how he could shake up the race.
You said this:
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence
Care to explain this?
I was only using it as a baseline for my point that Bloomberg could torpedo the moderates.
So the data you gave doesn't actually support what you said about Bloomberg?
Are are incorrect. I said " A recent poll" and then gave what the numbers for that poll were.
I am moving on. Both of us having nothing to gain here.
From what I have read it has a positive goal in mind, but the method isn't working well. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it doesn't seem to be an effective policy.
Do you still want to talk about this or maybe another time?
His entire tone has changed over the course of the race.
Can you show him changing his mind as well?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because some pushed for it and some didn't. They had the ability to do something, but they just argued back and forth and didn't get it done. Their lack of cooperation is proof of their disunity.
What was the number of Republicans for and opposed "securing funding for building a wall"?
Democrats, when they had a majority, got Obama Care pushed through.
I am not going to answer your whataboutism but if you would like me to answer it, I will after you give me numbers for the above statement.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So if there was a majority how is this something for Republicans are not as unified?They had the majority of both houses and didn't pass it. Is that not evidence enough of disunity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I must've forgot what he said. Just read this and found out he isn't stating what I would consider socialist. Guess my other complaint would be that he is a populist. Creating a bad dynamic between the rich and the poor. Link.You asked if bernie leans socialist. He does not advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. And he advocates for regulation, like all politicians do. So does he lean socialist? He does in the same way as the rest of the democratic party does. If he is a socialist, so is the rest of the dems. Personally, I don't think he nor the dems are socialist.
He advocates for regulation.
Okay.
I am not attempting to dispute that an average is better than a single poll.
Why did you use the single poll in the first place?
I gave exact stats. You said "False". If what I said was untrue then the logical inference is that I am lying.
You can infer what you like. You simply looked at one data from the link instead of looking what the data is about. An average not a single poll. That is false.
Thank you, many people use vague or incorrect terminology.
I knew what socialism meant but could've sworn Bernie said something towards that.
A government clearly cannot, and should not, be responsible for everything.
This is all I need. What do you think about rent control?
Take buttigieg for example, a few months ago he said he was all for medicare for all, now he is campaigning hard against it.
Can you link this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You two should have a debate on if the utility of having a specific Sports forum is positive or negative...
The utility I would gain even accepting this debate is non-existent. If the debate is what is hinging your decision I am not accepting it. I have clearly shown how it is a bad option and you didn't even decide to rebut my points.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Polling data as in "securing funding for building a wall" was a contention in the Republican party?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bernie has never advocated for the means of production being owned by the state. Virtually all politicians agree that the government should engage is some level of regulation of them, so if Bernie is a socialist, so is pretty much every politician.
What did I say?
Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?
I used the word "lean". Meaning he doesn't have to be a full-blown socialist to be leaning towards to it. Now I have clarified that. Would you like to make a response?
And that is a totally reasonable argument to make.
Are you even going to attempt to argue against what I said?
Calling me a liar on the other hand is not an acceptable answer when what I said was true.
Quote me saying that please.
I provided the exact numbers. The link you gave me was the exact same website though, so clearly you already had it.
I don't think it is worth me arguing this so I will drop it.
No, I do not believe that the means of production should be owned by the state.
What do you value?
Why do you support Bernie?
I'll stop calling a socialist. Sorry.
But it was the top result in the link you gave me, so you clearly knew where to look.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Polling data?Namely, securing funding for building a wall, which was the main campaign promise of the Republican president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If you read what Ragnar said:Then you don't touch it often
At a glance, at least five members use the Sports forum
You would realize he used the word use not often. That means by me simply adding that link I have used the Sports section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
At a glance, at least five members use the Sports forum.
Are you counting me?
I posted a link that has nothing to do with sports. I can't be called a regular there either given this.
armoredcat has one post in a while on the sports forum.
AvoidDeath hasn't posted for 9 days.
The only two regulars are Supa and Franklin. Doesn't matter about use. It matters how many people use it and how regular they are.
And again, the way people engage with sports differs from how someone say watches Netflix.
Just like how people engage with Music. Why doesn't that section have its own thread?
The Netflix person might share a meme, the sports person might share a detailed breakdown of how it raining three days before the game is going to shift a decimal point in the performance of one player, in turn changing the point spread of the game (not an exaggeration, just look at Deflate-Gate).
The sports person might share a meme. The Netflix person might share a detail breakdown of how much time an actor spent on perfecting his art for the most recent move or TV show they were in. Here look at this video. If you wanted niche topics talked about here is a channel dedicated to it. If you couldn't find a niche topic here is one from the channel.
If Deflate-Gate wasn't niche then it has to be controversy. Well here is controversy for you.
Just so we are clear what I just did. I simply took the formulation of your arguments and applied it to be comparable to the other side. Meaning the differences you laid out are not actually differences instead you simply not realizing the other side that you are saying doesn't have, actually does have it.
A person shares a meme.
B person shares a meme.
A has detailed breakdowns.
B has detailed breakdowns.
Look A has this niche topic.
Look B has this niche topic.
A= Sports
B= Netflix or are more fair comparison would be Movies or TV shows because we would be comparing different forms of entertainment not a streaming service vs an entire industry.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Evidence.The Right isn't as united as you may think.
Created:
Posted in:
I put my belief way over what you think is the most reasonable, sure. Did you expect something else?
Basically irrational. Pretty much admitting here that it doesn't matter what the facts are. It matters if it conforms to my beliefs. You just copied your last response. I am guessing I must hit a nerve or this must be the extent of how much your belief helps you conform with reality.
OK. It was nice to know what you don't do?
Please tell me how you don't do this.
So that your beliefs are different from reality is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information?
It wasn't my belief that Jesus didn't resurrect. It is a fact. You are basing your belief of Christianity on incomplete information. Not like you care.
Tell me, is your belief reality? If yes, will I stop existing if you stop believing?
No I am speaking about the conclusion part. Conclusions can be factual as in ethang5 has 2,005 forum posts.
If you think reality and your beliefs are the same thing, it matters a lot.
I don't think that. To you it doesn't matter because you don't care about reality. Only if it conforms to your beliefs. I take the position what is most reasonable is that Jesus didn't resurrect. This goes against the teachings of Christianity so by you having Protestantism as your Religious affiliation clearly shows you don't care about reality.
His heart began to beat, He opened his eyes and stood up. He then walked out of the tomb. I hope the wait wasn't too long for you.
Is your ability to believe also impacting your view of evidence? This isn't evidence by the way. The only way you can prove it is with science and even then you won't concede Jesus's supposed resurrection is repeatable because that is Jesus' claim to being more than human. You can here do what no other irrational Religious person has done which is find the evidence for this or talk about well there are plenty of others things that Jesus has done that would be considered supernatural and waste both of our times.
So your belief is good because.... you believe it. Lol. OK man.
So your belief is good because I am attaching it to something I can't prove it exists? OK man.
I have not told why I believe what I do. And you do not yet know what I can or cannot prove. Your belief is not reality.
Your profile has already stated it for you:
Religion: Protestantism
Are you too much of a coward to defend the very Religion you are apart of? Maybe Harikrish's conspiracy theories have some credibility to them.
If you disagree about why you believe what you do, say why. Don't try to assume my position for me.
Is this actually the best you got? Instead of defending your beliefs you are resorting to well you don't know what I believe so you can't talk about it. This is lazy and actually really boring. Why not try next time?
Can you prove to me abiogenesis exists? Can you prove to me dark matter exists?Can you prove to me your spleen exists?
Wait what? So you can't be bothered to defend your Religion but you can't be bothered to ask me questions and expect me to answer them? It isn't how it works. I know you don't like answering questions but don't expect me if you won't. You know I would stop talking to you if you tell me I can't defend my beliefs. Just those words would be enough.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the nose.
I ask you to defend the very thing you believe in yet you can't. How faulty must your belief be that one line of questioning destroys it?
You're like the racist who asks for "facts" that blacks are intelligent. You just know what he's going to think of the facts.
This isn't a fact. We do not have a good measurement for intelligence and people who compare race to intelligence have no scientific backing. The claim would only work if I was living in Nazi Germany not now when scientific racism is outlawed for how irrational it is.
So you prove to me that you know what facts are by proving dark matter, abiogenesis, and your spleen exists, and I will give you my evidence that God exists.
This isn't how it works. If you can't defend your beliefs. I understand. Your beliefs must really be weak to have to be pivoting to a new topic entirely. Who would have thought having reality conform to your beliefs was difficult. I did and I have made it clear here that you can't even answer 1 question about your beliefs.
I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Am I racist for saying that?
It is a racist comment. I wouldn't know how much you would have to say to be racist or the level of saying the n word makes you racist instead of just stating a racist comment.
Ask a black person or some authority of blacks which I don't think exists so you must do it person to person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't see why you are copying the entire thing. You will eventually reach the character limit while also filling up half the page with stuff that isn't even your reply.
I put my belief way over what you think is the most reasonable, sure. Did you expect something else?
I don't put weight into some guy that you idolize over qualified people today just because you have no proof but believe he is Godly.
What you believe is not reality because you believe it, and is not reality for others, is conjecture? Lol, perhaps you have a private meaning for the word "conjecture"?
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
It doesn't matter what I can believe. It matters what I can prove if we both care about fact. If you don't then just say so. Now if you do care about fact tell me how Jesus resurrected. I'll wait.
So your belief is good because.... you believe it. Lol. OK man.
So your belief is good because you assign something of value even though you can't prove it exists. Lol. I'll wait for you to prove to me God exists. If you don't care about the facts just tell me.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Both are based on what people believe which is based on what people value.
Left uses less Religion which is better at helping people.
Can be seen with pro-immigation, rent-control, against ICE, care about racial and class injustices
Right uses more Religion which doesn't have the same impact.
Can be seen with against immigration, pro law enforcement, care less about racial and class injustices
Another important factor is the unification of both sides. The left is not unified whereas the right are more so. This can be seen with socialist trying to gate-keep or have the moral high-ground over liberals and in some cases indirectly against the very people they are trying to help. The right would be with Trump's approval rating which has remained so high for Republicans. Monmouth University poll has him at a 84%. AP-NORC has him at a 79% and Fox News has him at a 86%. With the left you have socialists and liberals. Pelosi is disliked by AOC even though it is in both of their interests to work together. I blame that more on socialists who don't know incremental change is how you get things done not radical change in a political climate who don't like your ideas because of how easy it is to fall into the rights narrative.
Now onto the question of optics. The reason why the right is seen more as "reasonable" is because of dumbf*cks online like skeptics and conservatives using the words like rational for their irrational ideas. This can be explained by if something wrong is spread around it will eventually be correct or something, either that or Religion is so ingrained and the only thing the right has to do is vocalize their Religious base. It just so happens they were also popular so the popular consensus would be that they are more reasonable because Ben beats college kids. Now I think it is clear it is the persuasive rhetoric that wins him but people don't see it like that. Conservative ideas are way more palatable given how much easier it is to understand so it easier for people who are less educated to be welcoming of their ideas. I don't blame the less educated. I am blame the left who don't actually decide to make their points straight and simple while also being unified. I wouldn't want to be talked down by someone instead I would like to feel good about being wrong so I don't imagine others would like that either.
TLDR,
Both think they are doing good.
The left does more good but it is more complicated which can be blamed on their bad way of giving out information and on the thing they are advocating for.
The right does more bad but it is simpler which can be blamed for how good they are at giving out information and how simple it is to advocate for their ideas.
The right has better way of sending their message which is why it is easier for them to platform as rational instead of what they actually are. The left don't understand that people are not going to change their mind if you talk down to them which makes it more difficult if you want people to accept your ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I see it warn’t no use wasting words—you can’t learn a nigger to argue. So I quit.
Please read what you say before creating it. Me not saying the complete word discredits what I say? No it doesn't and you haven't demonstrated how it is the case.
If you do quit. Good riddance because the less Spammer Franklin is around the more intelligent everyone else looks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?There aren't any socialists or commies in this election. Either you don't know what those terms mean or your bias is causing you to use them incorrectly.
Please actually read the things I write before saying they are false. I said "a recent poll". You then listed the average of polls for the last month. The most recent poll is the Quinnipiac poll done on October 30th. Those numbers are from that poll. So what I said was true.
An average would be better because the Q poll could've been the outlier compared to all the other polls. That is why I used an average instead put forward one poll.
Also, I provided evidence and then you attacked me because this was just "feelings". Maybe you should reflect on how your bias is affecting your arguments. just a thought.
Are you blind? I am sure you are not. Where is the link? You don't have evidence if you don't cite your sources.
I'm not certain any amount of evidence would be enough to prevent you from descending to using personal attacks to try to deflect the conversation.
Please I was more than cordial arguing against the gish galloping your gave me the first and only time you gave links but now I see none. Do you want to prove your are not an anti-intellectual putting your beliefs over what reality is? Your just like the conservatives. Instead of believing in God you believe in a socialist utopia.
Answer my question so I know that you stated you are one. Are you a socialist?
If your only method of debating someone is to go to ad-hominem attacks, you just come off as someone either so biased that they reject information outside their bubble, or as someone who is too stupid to understand information they are provided. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter. But it could be either.
This exact same thing can be said to you apart from ad-homs. The things is it is inaccurate to be annoyed at my ad-homs when you don't even present where I can consistently shown to bring evidence. If you state me calling an anti-intellectual because you value feelings over facts an ad-hom, I reject. Mainly because I am simply saying what is happening. You are not providing evidence because you haven't cited your sources. It is not my job to present the links that you didn't bother too. It is your job if you actually don't want to come off as an anti-intellectual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about.
How?
If you don't know why I take Jesus seriously, you're too ill informed for the answer to the question.
I guessing you put your belief over what is the most reasonable right?
I will say to you though that what you believe is not reality because you believe it, and it is certainly not reality for others.
Conjecture.
Nihilism eh? Really?
At least I don't believe in God and assume they are good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you just want to trash progressives then this isn't really the right topic.
I want to trash socialist/commies. Social progressives are completely fine but when you talk about economics and then bring up socialism then I know how little the person has really thought about their dreams. I think you fall in because you tout the same stuff that they do but I haven't really seen your directly stating any socialist ideas. Are you a socialist?
A recent poll puts Warren at 20, Buttigieg at 19, Sanders at 17 and Biden at 15.
False
Pete is at 17. Bernie 15.8. Biden 15.5. This has got to be bernie logic or maybe you have sources but refuse to lose them. Just don't expect me to not state that you are arguments are based on feelings.
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling
I wasn't talking about Bloomberg. I was talking almost every single time before the first time I told you to bring evidence. You refuse to use evidence. You are basically an anti-intellectual and clearly showing Bernie's base. Poor more than likely stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
This doesn't even address the blatant contradiction. I will keep pointing it out until you address it.
All souls come out of the very heart of God as an expression, it doesn't matter what they like or chose to be. That is what makes creation magical, ignorant Theists think there is some line or barrier between what man does and what God thinks or creates lol, all things come out of a singular reality and there never could be anything else. That means there is nothing that distinguishes God from it's creation, ever. Everything that you experience the Creator experiences, this goes for every channel of conscious awareness, not just some.
Evidence? I don't think you have changed since the last time I asked you so maybe you actually found the evidence that I previously asked you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
This topic was about bloomberg. Why are you trying to make it about bernie and pete?
Nothing in the rules said I can't and I want too.
Who exactly is bloomberg's base?
Whatever it is he is unlikely to win so the votes will just go back to the people he took from.
Is evidence not a word you understand? Please do use it because you are simply doing this based on your feelings until you can support your claims. Your just as bad as Republicans because they also put feelings over facts. If you don't care then tell me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Misread what you said.
but the question is for me do you ageism is a legitimate and serious form of discrimination?
Depends on what we are comparing it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you don't suck dick then God doesn't, if you do, then God does.
The thing is I am not the only person that exists. A gay person does exist. They have done it so God has.
If you lick pussy then so does God. Pretty simple eh? the irony is that you exist within the same reality as a dick sucker.
Yes I exist in the same reality but God has done it. Me living in the same reality doesn't actually mean I experience the same things. Do you have a problem with gay people being in the same reality?
This doesn't even address the blatant contradiction. I will keep pointing it out until you address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It is ageism. You are insulting people based on age. No matter of excuses change that.
It is like you pretty much made excuses for the n-word. In that scenario like this one you are insulting people based on things they can't change but maybe you don't care about that. N-word is racist. OK boomer is ageist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't suck dick but you said God does.
This: "there's nothing that you or anybody can experience that God doesn't experience"
Contradicts
So basically God sucks dick?
This: "No you do"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So basically God sucks dick?Lol, there's nothing that you or anybody can experience that God doesn't experience. You are the channel for the Divine to experience anything and everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Does God know how dick tastes?
Does God know what anal feels like?
Does God have the power to be gay?
Does God have the power to be a women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are lots of political donors and dem establishment types that love that. There are very few voters that do.
Bernie is struggling beating Pete in Iowa
If very few voters care about this it would be represented in the polls but sadly yet another time where facts don't confirm your reality that Bernie is an unpopular candidate. Bernie is contesting Biden for 3rd place.
He is completely out of touch with what voters want.
You are living in a bubble if you think "centrist liberal" politics doesn't win elections. Hillary beat Bernie. Bernie is losing to Pete in Iowa and is barely beating Biden.
Please also define "centrist liberal".
Which to me makes it good news as it will weaken others and give Sanders a billionaire foil to play off of.
More than likely if Bloomberg is as un-electable as you think he will drop out and the voters will go some place else. Those voters for Bloomberg don't just vanish. They go somewhere and given how you speak about him it is more than likely they would just help Warren, Biden or Pete beat Bernie when he does decide to drop out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Why do you take Jesus seriously and how is he qualified in talking about politics?A one world government would be the forerunner to the apocalypse Jesus spoke about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
To summarize because I am ending this:
Seems to me like bad faith efforts on your part.
Can't engage in hypotheticals.
Went away from the pivotal point.
Acted like Mopac.
Next time I'll try not to engage with you. You are neither an authority on this site nor are able to be competent in discussing ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
If they are banned from the forums but still talk about the forums in the debate section. That seems to me like a loophole.If they want to talk about forum related stuff in debates let them. They would lose the debate anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It is not the case now. It may be the case later. Therefore it would be unwise to set a precedent that could bite you in the butt later.
That is if you don't set a restriction. As in if we reach x amount of complaints within an x amount of time then we would use plan b to deal with things. This can be worked out. It is not complicated.
And given how whiny users are when any little thing changes (case-in-point, this very thread here), it would also be unwise to set a standard now then change it later.
You are pretty much against any change that you think eventually will be changed. Bad policy if you actually want to improve the site. You need to try something at least once in order to remove that idea from the equation. If not then you are just doing what DDO does and hope that it works out instead trying to be more effective.
The conversation is only stifled by your voluntary choice to not continue it. There is no requirement (other than one you invent) that it has to continue in that thread.
Do I have to make my point clear? By locking the thread Speedrace stifled conversation in that thread. One other thing are you telling me you, as an authority for the site, will you advocate for me to make a duplicate of a locked thread whenever that does happen again?
Being banned is a punishment. Having your posting privileges removed is a punishment. Locking a thread is not a punishment.
It is a punishment to everyone who wanted to be involved in that thread.
Okay, but you are not justified in doing so.
When you do decide to give an argument I'll bother to tell you why I don't support it. Until then make sure you have something more worthwhile to add then no yes okay.
If you don't care, then don't insist that your actions are justified.
My earlier response was this
"Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur."
You didn't actually argue against me. You instead agreed with me
"If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified."
Showing how pedantic you are to the detriment of what is being argued. I said I don't care because you already conceded about the point at hand. I don't care to talk about how I went about it because it isn't against the rules and the more important point has already been agreed upon. You are just bringing up something that wasn't even a pivotal part.
I don't believe that. I was simply letting you know. It was an informational statement, not an accusation.
It was a fact so you can't be unfair on how you represented what my position is?
If that is your position then by black people receiving less education opportunities a person saying black people are just stupid is justified because it was an informational station not an accusation.
This is not even talking about you pretty much admitting here that you think there is an objective standard of being fair. How in the hell have you done that? You haven't bridged the is and ought gap nor do I think you are even competent in doing so. You are pretty much stating falsities. Saying you were being fair is an informational statement is basically saying I know for certainty that I am correct but you haven't demonstrated it. Please do. I would like to see you try to tell me you were being fair objectively.
This runion sentence makes no sense, please rephrase.
You asked me a question you had no reason of asking. I have made it clear how I did not talk about intentions nor do I think either of us are mind readers yet you still ask a redundant question.
Okay.
Okay
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It sets a precedent which could very well become impractical.
Under the amount of users it is doable and when it does become a lot to bear then you can work from there. It being impractical only works if the amount of people reported is more than the time that the moderators have to moderate. I don't think that is the case. Maybe I am wrong.
The requirement that you HAVE to continue the conversation in THAT specific thread is self-imposed.
Why are you changing my objection? I couldn't continue the conversation in the thread I started the conversation. If you think it is self-imposed then you must also accept that poor people not being able to live in an area is self-imposed because they can just move to another area.
drafterman's self-imposed definition:
A is annoyed that they cannot continue to be in B.
This is self imposed because they can just find another B.
A= Whatever person
B= Place.
You were not punished.
Showing no argument. Demonstrating the failure you have rebutting the claims being brought forward by me. If you weren't in a position to actually argue against my claims why not say it?
You have forgotten what we are talking about here. The "actions" I am referring to are how you respond to the situation, such as using insults and your general tone.
Do you think I care? I don't. I will say those things to Speedrace again until the rules are changed.
I care about Speedrace locking the thread under "all" and Ragnar agreeing to it. Don't waste my time questioning my morality or whatever it is here if I don't care too. Actually put forward rules to restrict because I am not going to stop until you do.
Yes.
I am moving on. This to me is clearly showing you are being a bad faith actor. You think I believe that you can read minds even though I have stated I don't care about intentions nor do I want to talk about it. Even assuming that means you don't actually care about what I say instead put me in the worst light even though I can very well make an argument from what I said you can't even have that as a question. Me saying I don't care about intentions and saying I don't know how someone else feels to you still means you have to question that I think you read minds. Either you don't bother to read what I said and remember it or you are intentionally doing it. I can't know so I don't care. Either way it points to one direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I don't.
Why because it is impractical?
That is a self-imposed limitation.
A locked is limiting me by not allowing me to not use that thread. If it was self-imposed you could point to the thread not being locked but it was. It isn't self-imposed when I am not at fault.
No you were not.
Yes I was. I was punished for someone else or me engaging in personal attacks thus limiting me being able to use the thread.
As I am trying to teach my child son: you may not control your feelings, but you can control your actions.
Good luck but that is not how it works. No matter how I act I couldn't change Speedrace locking a thread. I hope you don't set unrealistic standards to me like you do for your son. Saying it is a self-imposed limitation is lying about the situation or you are saying I am at fault. I am not.
I didn't suggest that. I am simply informing you that I am not a mind reader and therefore cannot attest to the inner workings of someone else's mind.
So this was a fair statement?
"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Who said I wanted to delete thread?
If not me then
Tell me a single person you have messaged your comment too wants to delete the thread.
I am for punishing the people involved with the personal attacks.
drafterman takes the side of Speedrace, Ragnar and whoever "all" is.
Don't know about Virtuoso or RM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Sure, but I don't think it's beneficial in the long run to set it as a precedent now.
When you do reach that hurdle you can have my idea until you figure out how to automate it. Assuming you think my way of doing things is better.
But you are, in fact, free to continue the discussion. There is nothing special or magical about that thread that requires the conversation continue there. The only thing holding you back is you.
Free to not continue the discussion in the thread that was locked. I am not able to freely discuss in the thread I was in.
"inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code."
I was sanctioned as retribution of personal attacks that I may or may not have committed.
We're talking about whether your response is justified. Just because you are not forbidden from doing something by the rules doesn't mean that the response is justified.
Please give me an argument telling me how I am not justified in how I feel.
No, I do not want to clarify.
Okay. Guess you are going down the route of I can't defend the position so I am going to be like Mopac.
I don't know what you're saying here.
You didn't tell me what the problem is so I don't know what you didn't get.
It was unfair for you to suggest I called you a mind reader.
This was your comment about it ""Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?"
In what way was this remotely fair question regarding what I said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
What do you mean I can take offence over that or coal can say autistic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You've mentioned both, yes. So if you advocate a warning first, then okay. But that just raises the issues of impracticality when it involves a lot of users at once.
It is impractical if you don't have the time. I don't believe the amount of people on the site makes it impractical. I would say you are making excuses. This is a hunch that is all.
You are free to message them or reply to them. You can create an entirely new thread to continue any appropriate conversation you wish.
But I am not free to continue the discussion on the locked thread. You basically didn't argue against my points. You just made new points instead of rebutting my claims.
You have not been punished.
Define punishment.
I said: "The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge."You replied: "Where?"Those links are in reference to the statement I made.
Oh didn't realize you don't double quote or whatever it is, you just quote one thing and have my reply without quotations. Sorry.
I don't make the rules here.
But you have an impact because the discord DA has a close communication with DA.
If your complaint is that the rules should be more clear about what the moderators can do in certain situations, then I would agree that such a response is justified. But your responses are laced with a level of accusation and insult that I do not find justified.
Quote the accusation not insults and tell me why I am wrong. I can insult the moderators and when that rule changes then I won't.
Because I have already explained why it is not a fault-worthy action.
You basically made an intention point which neither of us are Virtuoso so basically have no points in regarding this. Do you want to clarify because I seem to be missing your "defense"?
Because you are asking me why Virt chose to say something he said. The only person that knows that is Virt.
Okay lets say that is true. It was unfair for you to get a why did someone do X to do you think I am mind reader? If you actually don't agree you are pretty much arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't clear the answer that would've been fair was that I haven't asked Virtuoso, I do not have the power to ask for that information or it was because of x.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So you want the moderators to ignore responses made to them?
Listen. If they do make a good argument, implement it.
Warnings are usually given before a ban. Seems like you want people banned at the drop of a hat.
Unfair representation of what I said. I did advocate for a message for them to apologize or be banned. That is a far cry from banning them at a drop of a hat. I am getting more from you that you are being bad faith the longer I am speaking with you.
How would you know?
I don't know which is why I used "seem".
No conversation was stifled and no one was punished.
I was going to message both Supa and Annie back but couldn't because the thread was locked. That is stifling conversation. Please demonstrate otherwise. I was punished for someone giving out personal attacks which stopped me from responding.
Please read what I say before linking me 3 different things that don't answer what I said. Here is what I said again "neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it."
1st one is about a discussion so nothing finalized.
2nd is an AMA which wouldn't you know is ended with me asking question Virtuoso has yet to respond too.
3rd one is about moving forward not about what the different style would pertain too.
There are no rules regarding the locking of threads.
Maybe you should've made the rule before you know using a hole in a system to do what you like. Thank you for telling me I am warranted for my position that this is a new precedent that the rules don't even make clear that is allowed. Meaning I am justified in my response because I am not a mind reader so what was done by Speedrace was done without me knowing it could occur.
Incorrect.
You are arguing against reality. Speedrace's comment in the thread is clearly pointing towards him being at fault for locking the thread. Next time try to mount a defense instead of doing something Mopac does. Giving not worthwhile answers that I have nothing to work with. Please find where I didn't elaborate like you didn't here. I would try my best to explain my points further if I didn't.
It is not.
Guess this is a trend. Can't argue against it just do what Mopac does. Claims without explanation.
Okay.
Thank you. I would've thought you wouldn't be okay with how much better bsh1 characterizes what he says but guess I am wrong.
"Feigning" are you assuming I can telepathically tap into Virts mind and am lying about it?
I am not assuming you can read people's mind. I would like to see how you deductively got that.
Given that this is pivotal to what you said please address this and give a better counter then I assumed you are a mind reader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The issue is you stated what you would like to happen to you contingent on what happens to other people. This is not something under your control.
I am not disagreeing with you.
So you are voluntarily requesting to be banned?
If I wanted to be voluntarily banned then I would ask to banned voluntarily. If I wanted the people who were issuing personal attacks to banned I would like moderators to enforce those rules instead of locking the thread. Ask the question again and I am implying you don't know what I am talking about.
Given that a user is allowed to request that they be banned, what you believe does matter. If you believe you have committed a ban worthy offense and want to be banned for it, all you have to do is ask. Is this a formal request?
Still not addressed. It doesn't matter what I personally feel here. It matters what the moderators do. If I ask for a ban. I get banned because I asked for a ban not because I was the one who should've been banned issuing personal attacks.
While messaging individual users is possible now, it is still a chore, depending on how many users need to be message. Especially when you account for the inevitable bickering and back-and-forth most users will engage in.
Simple, don't bicker. Have clearly laid out messages. The user would have to apologize or accept a ban. You are trying to make things complicated when they are not.
Assuming this community will grow, it would simply be impractical, if not possible, to expect that moderators message every single user when an instance of mass, potential violations is in progress.
Give me a ballpark of people warranted a message in the thread. Lets go with 5. Send the exact same private messages but send 5 different links of what they said. Ask them to apologize or accept a ban. This would only take a couple of minutes and then you would wait for the other person to reply in with the closed question. This can be further tuned to having everyone accept a time span they are allowed not to reply. A week should be enough time.
Locking the thread is a single action. Quick, easy, and painless.
How about Speedrace requiring to need the permission of "all" moderators for this to be enacted? Seems more like a long, tedious and painful. My suggestion would take more time but you won't be locking a thread which is stifling a conversation. Assuming this community will grow, you wouldn't want them to leave because someone else did something so they should also be punished.
There is a new moderation team with a different style of moderation.
Thank you for telling me this because neither Virtuoso or the others have made it clear what the different style would pertain too apart from I think some CoC changes but not how the moderation would follow up on it.
The site itself is undergoing changes and the current policies are being looked at and reviewed. This is general, public knowledge.
Where?
you seem more annoyed about rules being followed the way they've always been followed than what is actually best for the users and the site.
I didn't follow what you said here. I am more "annoyed" about new interpretations of the rules. For example Speedrace locking a non-spam and non-moderator thread.
An apology implies fault.
It was the fault of Speedrace locking the thread. Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it not realizing they haven't done it before. Not realizing how a user would react to it. Then stating they would never do it again. I think it is reasonable for me to imply this is an apology. I can still imply who is at fault and you are not arguing against Speedrace issuing it and Ragnar and "all" agreeing to it then Virtuoso changing his mind.
You can do something that turns out to not be the correct course of action without having committed any mistakes or errors or done anything that is fault-worthy.
Don't waste my time with intent. I don't think you are as capable as bsh1 in arguing this. I know how it went down with bsh1 and this time I think it would be a poor representation of his position even if the moderation has changed I don't think what you said here was formulated better than bsh1.
I cannot attest to the inner workings of Virtuouso's mind.
I am deductively reasoning this. You are simply feigning ignorance which is obviously also my position.
Perhaps you should recommend that Mike create a medal for that?
If only I cared about medals. Sorry but you can take the typo medal if you want.
That link affirms what I was saying: It wasn't a unilateral action taken by Speedrace himself.
Who said I disagreed? Speedrace locked the thread agreed by Ragnar and "all".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Me. The first part I picked the best decision.If the answer is larger than 8, you are a ruthless dictator without wing orientation, you may identify as an anarchic rebel.
The second was subjective so I picked what I felt bad about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You don't get to control whether or not other people are banned
Who said I did? I am talking what I would like to happen. I can't believe you got that from what I said. I am not so delusional to think I am part of the moderation team.
If you, personally, want to be banned for what you feel is violating content, you can always voluntarily request a ban.
I would be banned voluntarily. Not because of my supposed personal attacks. I seriously don't understand why you couldn't get this without the need of me clarifying for you.
That you believe you probably did violate the CoC, and that you believe you should be banned for it, but haven't requested a ban, suggests that you don't actually want to be banned.
It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how Virutoso and co interpret the CoC.
That is an impractical precedent to set.
Please elaborate.
Decisions such as banning are usually a result of internal discussion and consensus. What we have is multiple instances of behavior entering a grey area where you might have some people agreeing it is a violation but others not yet agreeing. We can view the locking of the thread as a precautionary measure to halt the behavior before it reached a point where there wasn't any doubt and mass warnings/bannings were in order.What boggles my mind is anyone that views this as the less desirable option than doing nothing until you need to start whipping out the ban hammer. It seems abundantly clear to me that if you can take a simple, less intrusive action that halts the undesirable conduct without having to ban lots of people, clearly that is the better option than waiting for people to inevitably do something egregious enough to warrant a banning.
Why was this under I was privately messaged a while back? I don't see how this speaks about that instead of saying what you want it to be without understanding how he doesn't actually involve what I said. If you want to talk about generally how things are done then talk about it. Just don't put it in a particular interaction I had. A response I would've wanted was that the rules have changed since then, it has been a while since we have done that if you are telling the truth or something else speaking about what you quoted from me.
I cannot attest to the inner workings of bsh1 mind.
Great job keeping in line with what you quoted. I guessed you didn't understand that before.
I didn't see any apology.
I implied that from them saying we won't do it anymore. It is more likely an admission of guilt than it is something they did correctly. If it was correct he wouldn't be saying he wouldn't do it anymore.
I doubt you will find that anyone involved in the decision would agree with the interpretation that Speedracer did this on his own in some sort of rogue or uniltaeral action, or that the move was one of incompetence. In short, there is nothing to apologize for.
Guess Virtuoso decided to say it won't happen again because it was the correct thing to do to remove a good decision? Okay.
I didn't claim Speedrace (Please get his name right, I thought you, discord DA. was in close communication with DA. I find that funny since you don't even bother calling your peers correctly.). I claimed an example of a moderator being more accountable than the head moderator is what Speedrace did. It seems like you liked to find the context of Virtuoso not directly apologizing but you forgot to mention where Speedrace told me Ragnar had a part to play. Are you going to feign ignorance or are you just now realizing Speedrace spoke Ragnar specifically and all whatever that is? Link
Update: Great job remembering there is one 1 r in Speedrace
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll wait until Virtuoso says that.Bsh1 never once, not even one tiny bit, apologised for Virtuoso.
Created: